What Gravity IS: Understanding Ralph Sansbury

[tholden]

https://steemit.com/science/@gungasnake ... amounts-to

[crawler]

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Th% ... 0light.pdf
I must have a read of Gravitomagnetism and Light, by Sansbury.

VanFlandern reckoned that gravity had a speed of over 20 billion c.
That's 634.2 lightyears per second.
Sansbury's 2.5 million LY/sec is 3,942 times as fast as that (ignoring the "over").

Has Sansbury's 10 nanosecond @ 400 nanosecond light chopping experiment been replicated?
I think that the zero detection tells us more about the nature of his Pockel Cell rather than the nature of light.

[tholden]

Has Sansbury's 10 nanosecond @ 400 nanosecond light chopping experiment been replicated?
I think that the zero detection tells us more about the nature of his Pockel Cell rather than the nature of light.

I don't think so but then, there seem to be experiments which the scientific establishment types don't want to do or hear about, seemingly because they have queasy feelings about what might turn up.

[tholden]

Has Sansbury's 10 nanosecond @ 400 nanosecond light chopping experiment been replicated?
I think that the zero detection tells us more about the nature of his Pockel Cell rather than the nature of light.

Should mention also, the last part of the little steemit blog post linked above describes my own version of a Sansbury-type description of light as a sequence of bow waves created by streams of Sansbury's subtron particles being thrown off by energetic processes.

If I am right about this "redneck theory of light", then light coming to us from distant galaxies may be taking seconds and minutes to get here, and not millenia.

[crawler]

Has Sansbury's 10 nanosecond @ 400 nanosecond light chopping experiment been replicated?
I think that the zero detection tells us more about the nature of his Pockel Cell rather than the nature of light.

Should mention also, the last part of the little steemit blog post linked above describes my own version of a Sansbury-type description of light as a sequence of bow waves created by streams of Sansbury's subtron particles being thrown off by energetic processes.

If I am right about this "redneck theory of light", then light coming to us from distant galaxies may be taking seconds and minutes to get here, and not millenia.

For sure there must be lots of experiments (that contradict standard science) hidden away to not rock the boat.
And some papers get past the gatekeepers (accidentally or on purpose) by showing that the contradiction can in fact be explained by STR or GTR by invoking (knowingly or non-knowingly) ridiculous versions of STR & GTR (eg Sagnac for GPS).

Sansbury i think mainly says that subtrons move much faster than c, & that the eye or detectors invent a photon moving at c after enough subtrons have done their work. Anyhow an electric dipole kind of explanation of gravity doesn't appeal to me.

I wonder if redshift is really a kind of redneckshift.