Light

[Olorin]

A serious question puzzles me. Light is described as electro-magnetic energy. It is also described as quantized with each quantum having energy proportional to its frequency, yielding Planck's constant as the proportionality factor. But unlike the proton or electron (& their antiparticles), which have a specific rest mass, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation IS light in some reference frame at a particular range of relative velocities. For brevity I shall call it all "light" so quoted. Is the quantum if "light" an abstraction without a specific mass/energy, unlike the above mentioned particles? It seems to me to be like account books (or bytes) as opposed to actual money, which is the materializable "hard" cash in the bank. E = m.c^2 for particles, m being rest mass, but "photons" seem to have no such identity, sticking religiously to speed c to avoid an identity crisis by never resting, and so claiming zero "rest mass". Perhaps Einstein was aware that the "light" quantum was a very relative abstraction, denouncing "quantum theory" as progressively more laughable with each elaboration. It may be that the disturbance in the electric field, "THE FORCE" has a finite time to interact decisively with an electron to force emission from a charged plate, which determines the energy that can be imparted or absorbed, or else the "photon" is re-emitted somewhat apparently "slowed" by the medium in question. We may be dealing with another "phlogiston" theory, and the only real quanta are the subatomic particles which do not spontaneously decompose. Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus. All, in fact, decompose into the stable particles, energy ( ? accounting information of "THE FORCE" ? ), and the suspicious fabricated phlogiston we called a neutrino to explain beta ray energies. But that is another story.

 

[studiot]

38 minutes ago, Olorin said:

A serious question puzzles me. Light is described as electro-magnetic energy. It is also described as quantized with each quantum having energy proportional to its frequency, yielding Planck's constant as the proportionality factor. But unlike the proton or electron (& their antiparticles), which have a specific rest mass, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation IS light in some reference frame at a particular range of relative velocities. For brevity I shall call it all "light" so quoted. Is the quantum if "light" an abstraction without a specific mass/energy, unlike the above mentioned particles? It seems to me to be like account books (or bytes) as opposed to actual money, which is the materializable "hard" cash in the bank. E = m.c^2 for particles, m being rest mass, but "photons" seem to have no such identity, sticking religiously to speed c to avoid an identity crisis by never resting, and so claiming zero "rest mass". Perhaps Einstein was aware that the "light" quantum was a very relative abstraction, denouncing "quantum theory" as progressively more laughable with each elaboration. It may be that the disturbance in the electric field, "THE FORCE" has a finite time to interact decisively with an electron to force emission from a charged plate, which determines the energy that can be imparted or absorbed, or else the "photon" is re-emitted somewhat apparently "slowed" by the medium in question. We may be dealing with another "phlogiston" theory, and the only real quanta are the subatomic particles which do not spontaneously decompose. Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus. All, in fact, decompose into the stable particles, energy ( ? accounting information of "THE FORCE" ? ), and the suspicious fabricated phlogiston we called a neutrino to explain beta ray energies. But that is another story.

 

That was a huge block of text entering into many areas which only have a tenuous connection or none at all.

So many questions all at once, I can't tell which are important to you so here are a few thoughts.

Phlogiston was not a 'force' theory.

You are correct that it takes a finite time for a photon to interact with an atom or electron or for the generation of a photon from an atom or electron.
This interaction time does not determine the energy of the interaction in any way. It is related to the energy by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP).

The quantum of energy is determined by environmental factors which set the potential energy levels available to the system.

If you can separate out and organise your questions better you will get some better answers.

[J.C.MacSwell]

+1 studiot and that's quite a first post Olorin. Welcome to the Forum.

3 hours ago, Olorin said:

A serious question puzzles me. Light is described as electro-magnetic energy. It is also described as quantized with each quantum having energy proportional to its frequency, yielding Planck's constant as the proportionality factor. But unlike the proton or electron (& their antiparticles), which have a specific rest mass, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation IS light in some reference frame at a particular range of relative velocities. For brevity I shall call it all "light" so quoted. Is the quantum if "light" an abstraction without a specific mass/energy, unlike the above mentioned particles? It seems to me to be like account books (or bytes) as opposed to actual money, which is the materializable "hard" cash in the bank. E = m.c^2 for particles, m being rest mass, but "photons" seem to have no such identity, sticking religiously to speed c to avoid an identity crisis by never resting, and so claiming zero "rest mass". Perhaps Einstein was aware that the "light" quantum was a very relative abstraction, denouncing "quantum theory" as progressively more laughable with each elaboration. It may be that the disturbance in the electric field, "THE FORCE" has a finite time to interact decisively with an electron to force emission from a charged plate, which determines the energy that can be imparted or absorbed, or else the "photon" is re-emitted somewhat apparently "slowed" by the medium in question. We may be dealing with another "phlogiston" theory, and the only real quanta are the subatomic particles which do not spontaneously decompose. Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus. All, in fact, decompose into the stable particles, energy ( ? accounting information of "THE FORCE" ? ), and the suspicious fabricated phlogiston we called a neutrino to explain beta ray energies. But that is another story.

 

Standard theory has all EMR at a constant  'c' in every inertial frame, not at a range of velocities. Or am I misinterpreting?

Edited December 31, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[Olorin]

 

You reply is appreciated. If "the quantum of energy is determined by environmental factors which set the potential energy levels available to the system", how then can we speak of a "quantum" of "light" as though it were a particle. Obviously, a cosmic ray proton can have the energy of a cricket ball from a fast bowler, but the kinetic energy of the proton or electron has two terms, a constant value of  mp = 1.6726219 × 10-27 or me = mp/1830 kilograms independent of its relative velocity, (the well known E = m0.c^2 usually quoted without the 0), and the second term which is totally dependent on relative v. The "photon" has, for its first term, zero times infinity, an indeterminate quantity. The second term implies that it represents the total energy, resolving the first term as zero. All of the energy of the "photon" is determined by the v of the mass it interacts with. This to my mind is NOT a particle, but pure force alone. Somehow, the "light" interacts with what seems to be the fundamental particles of matter (as defined before, electrons & protons, of which all other non-zero rest mass particles appear to be combines with energy). Suspiciously, the neutrino seems not to be  endowed with the ability to interact with matter at all. Any interactions attributed to neutrinos with matter may well be properly attributed to the extremely rare manifestations of antimatter particles created by gamma ray materialization as pair production (E.g. from gamma ray bursts, radioactive decay, &c.) It seems a likely and necessary symmetry that, while "photons" convex lens around black holes, "antiphotons" must concave lens instead, and we being matter, not antimatter, only see the "light". If "antiphotons" and neutrinos are one and the same thing, and gravity a dipole like every other force (as "white holes" + "black holes" and thus E = m.c^2 is potential energy with m signed), we have solved the universal expansion (with the attendant acceleration to boot) theory Einstein could not. The antiproton was discovered too late, but he dabbled unsuccessfully in a steady state theory, and could only tell Hubble about the expansion without a cause, that Hubble so kindly provided his mentor.

Direct current creates a magnetic field. Small v and huge q unbalance negative flux by space contraction. Alternating current produces "light". A second component of imbalance creates, by general instead of special relativity, gravitational force. "Light" bends toward the Sun. Circular motion is also acceleration, implying that both shell and relativistic nuclear electrons produce gravitational force likewise. With all charges reversed, matter and antimatter galaxies or clusters would experience G forces in opposite directions. Dark matter phlogiston is thereby unnecessary for galactic cluster formation, with repulsive forces now substituting for the missing mass. Lastly, were "light" in fact "electro-magnetic-gravitational" energy, involving the left hand rule significantly in matter vs antimatter reactions, then light rays travel in both directions from a source, and convert at the singularity, passing through the surrounding matter/antimatter without effect. This explains also gamma ray bursts, Hoag's object, Centaurus A and lastly Messier 82 with its hydrogen generation perpendicular to the plane of the Galaxy, besides the accelerating universe yet awaiting the next phlogiston. Why are we not asking "What the hell is happening to all of those neutrinos from Hubble's constant to now? What is their purpose or fate? Einstein said that, unless the universal density arbitrarily tends to zero with distance, it is unbounded but finite (maybe something like the three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere, where time is the fourth dimension graphed beyond our 3D minds as x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2. If so, the space is filling up fast. Have they really turned into quarks? The neutrinos of their first inception might be used to explain dark matter in desperation. But symmetry and conservation seem to be a necessary design fundamental. In intergalactic space alone, where no net matter or antimatter exist, photons and neutrinos may well annihilate by materialization as rarefied and virtually non-interacting particles, forming the separating hydrogen and antihydrogen to supply galactic coronas or replenish the universe with massive ellipticals, drawing swarms of dead galaxies to become globular clusters by the thousands. In the Milky Way about 150 remain undissipated.

Edited December 31, 2020 by Olorin

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, Olorin said:

 

You reply is appreciated. If "the quantum of energy is determined by environmental factors which set the potential energy levels available to the system", how then can we speak of a "quantum" of "light" as though it were a particle. Obviously, a cosmic ray proton can have the energy of a cricket ball from a fast bowler, but the kinetic energy of the proton or electron has two terms, a constant value of  mp = 1.6726219 × 10-27 or me = mp/1830 kilograms independent of its relative velocity, (the well known E = m0.c^2 usually quoted without the 0), and the second term which is totally dependent on relative v.

Yes, the kinetic energy is relative, as is a photon’s energy.

 

11 minutes ago, Olorin said:

The "photon" has, for its first term, zero times infinity, an indeterminate quantity.

What quantity is infinite? 

 

11 minutes ago, Olorin said:

 

The second term implies that it represents the total energy, resolving the first term as zero. All of the energy of the "photon" is determined by the v of the mass it interacts with.

No, it depends on the speed of the frame in which you do the measurement, relative to the source of the photon.

11 minutes ago, Olorin said:

This to my mind is NOT a particle, but pure force alone. Somehow, the "light" interacts with what seems to be the fundamental particles of matter (as defined before, electrons & protons, of which all other non-zero rest mass particles appear to be combines with energy). Suspiciously, the neutrino seems not to be  endowed with the ability to interact with matter at all. Any interactions attributed to neutrinos with matter may well be properly attributed to the extremely rare manifestations of antimatter particles created by gamma ray materialization as pair production (E.g. from gamma ray bursts, radioactive decay, &c.) It seems a likely and necessary symmetry that, while "photons" convex lens around black holes, "antiphotons" must concave lens instead, and we being matter, not antimatter, only see the "light".

No. Photons are indistinguishable from antiphotons. 

 

11 minutes ago, Olorin said:

If "antiphotons" and neutrinos are one and the same thing,

They aren’t. Different spin, and neutrinos have mass.

 

You may be better off limiting your scope, since much of it is wrong, and you need to provide evidence of your claims.

 

[Olorin]

The rest mass of the photon is zero. This is multiplied by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1/0 = infinity if v = c.

0 times infinity comes up as indeterminate when mathematics cannot resolve the expression.

There are plenty of photons passing us whose source we cannot determine. For argument's sake, only an observer can determine one such photon's frequency and hence its energy, while another moving relative to the first will assign that photon a different frequency. I am not terribly sure just who should be wearing a dunce cap here. I do know this.

1. Truth can only be established transiently on the basis of a consistent set of facts.

2. New information can threatened that set at any time by rendering it inconsistent.

3. There are few who can claim that they have questioned the information they have acquired from so-called authorities at best.

4. Einstein questioned the existence of space, time, the 'Ancient One', and the account of the Gospels. He came away only believing the last two were real, contrary to popular opinion which is sufficient authority to most.

5. What credentials establish one as wiser still, do you think? QED.

[Janus]

10 minutes ago, Olorin said:

The rest mass of the photon is zero. This is multiplied by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1/0 = infinity if v = c.

 

1/0 ≠ infinity, It is undefined.

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, Olorin said:

E = m.c^2 for particles, m being rest mass, but "photons" seem to have no such identity, sticking religiously to speed c to avoid an identity crisis by never resting, and so claiming zero "rest mass".

The full energy-momentum relation (which is simply the relationship between the temporal and spatial parts of the 4-momentum vector) is

\[E=\sqrt{m^2c^4+c^2p^2}\]

For massive particles at rest you have p=0 and thus

\[E=mc^2\]

For photons you have m=0, and thus

\[E=pc\]

12 hours ago, Olorin said:

and the only real quanta are the subatomic particles which do not spontaneously decompose

Particles do not need to be stable in order to be elementary. For example, the muon is elementary, but has only a short lifetime.

12 hours ago, Olorin said:

Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus.

Protons don't decay, so it is "more stable" than the neutron - even though both of them are quark triplets.

12 hours ago, Olorin said:

we called a neutrino to explain beta ray energies

Neutrinos naturally arise from the way the weak interaction works, since energy and momentum need to be conserved.

9 hours ago, Olorin said:

fundamental particles of matter (as defined before, electrons & protons, of which all other non-zero rest mass particles appear to be combines with energy)

Protons are not fundamental, they are composed of quark triplets, same as neutrons.

9 hours ago, Olorin said:

Suspiciously, the neutrino seems not to be  endowed with the ability to interact with matter at all.

They do interact with matter, it's called the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein effect. They also interact gravitationally, if you have enough of them.

9 hours ago, Olorin said:

and gravity a dipole like every other force

Gravity is not a force (though it can be approximated as such in the Newtonian limit) - as is easily seen by going into free fall while carrying an accelerometer.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Olorin said:

The rest mass of the photon is zero. This is multiplied by 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = 1/0 = infinity if v = c.

v=c does not represent an inertial frame, so using the Lorentz transform is inappropriate.

For a photon, E = pc, as Markus has explained 

6 hours ago, Olorin said:

There are plenty of photons passing us whose source we cannot determine. For argument's sake, only an observer can determine one such photon's frequency and hence its energy, while another moving relative to the first will assign that photon a different frequency. 

Neither of which need to be “a mass it interacts with”

 

[joigus]

18 hours ago, Olorin said:

Even the neutron has a 10.3 minute half life, and is the most stable outside the nucleus.

Neutrons are most stable inside the nucleus.

[Olorin]

Thanks for supplying so many replies to my wild conjectures. Let respond in order:

"1/0 <> infinity. It is undefined."

Q. How many times can you take 0 from 1 before you get zero? 
A. Infinity. (you will never stop subtracting. The tally will grow indefinitely.)
Q. How many times can you take 0 from 0 before you get zero? 
A. Indeterminate. (0 is correct. 1 is correct. 2 is correct. pi is correct. &c.)
Q. What is the reciprocal of infinity? 0/1 = 0.

How do you tackle subatomic physics without mathematics, even arithmetic? Mathematics alone stands sacrosanct (IDEAS AND OPINIONS, Geometry and Experience, pp 232).

Mathematics is correct. It implies 8 dimensions, 4 real, and 4 imaginary. i such that i^2 = -1 strangely completes the real numbers. Quite possibly an electric field vector for every point in space-time x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = t^2 describes eternity with the present t = 0 nonnegotiable in the flesh. Time and space have no definition without an observer, and are incomplete alone, while they define every physical entity, even mass given a standard, E.g. proton rest mass (mp). Is the observer matter/energy or pure consciousness? The body is matter, part of the present, which we have stated in different words cannot be independent of the observer. What then is the observer? Consciousness? Can scientists define it? Can computers create it? Some say it is primordial, the first cause that Ancient Egyptians called "Amen". It remains in your court to decide.

Q. The full energy-momentum relation (which is simply the relationship between the temporal and spatial parts of the 4-momentum vector) is:
E = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 (sic.)
For massive particles at rest you have p=0 and thus
E=mc2
For photons you have m=0, and thus
E=pc

A. You mean:
E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 for the check mark, presumably, or the rest does not follow.

This only supports my conjecture that a neither the "light" quantum NOR the neutrino its own antiparticle. Implied for non-mass entities (neutrinos have flip-flopped too many times for confidence in current Mainstream opinion, and even redeployed as, not one but three, quarks. Do you wonder at my scepticism? Initially, Mainstream conjecture held that neutrinos were massless/speed c which is none or both, and explained the range of energies of Beta rays):

E = c.p and E = -c.p noting that E is no vector.

Furthermore, "light" frequency (f0) in an observer's gravitational field strength, is transformed with changing mass density, as:

f = f0.(1 - G.m/r.c^2)..............................................(i)

This, of course determines the gravitational field strength at the singularity, the point where time stops and space disappears. The density yielding:

G.m/r.c^2 = 1

produces a "light" frequency of zero. However, as this thread conjectures, "light" rays are a two way street. An "electro-magnetic-gravitational" wave is actually produced, travelling in opposite directions, one producing phenomena presumed to support the "light" quanta hypothesis due Einstein, the other the neutrino. These quanta may represent reaction time for various processes like electron-emission. Their combined energies represent, contrary to current Mainstream thought, that required for particle-antiparticle production if they mutually "annihilate". As such, and consistent with tis thread's view of Gravity as the General Relativity force akin to the Special Relativity force called Magnetism, the frequency (f) is dependent on the signed mass type (m). So relation (i) spells out that, while the (relative) photon approaches the event horizon at the singularity of the mass maintaining it, the neutrino assumes the energy lost by the photon. All the energy is transferred to the repelled (relative) neutrino. Of course, whether mass or quanta are positive is Relative to the observer, or in relation (i), the sign of m. The "Asymmetric Matter-Antimatter" hypothesis needs to be reconsidered. Throughout this model of the Universe, conservation is zero sum and fully maintained. Similarly, atoms or their constituents can not continue to exist in no space or time but instantly evaporate as the "antilight", and pass through the galaxy material unimpeded, but concentrated toward the normal of the galaxy plane (E.g. galaxy M82 displays resultant materialisation).

Worse still, subatomic physics needs revision concerning neutrons in the nucleus. Deuterium has accordingly two protons "covalently" bonded by a relativistic electron.
Ordinary hydrogen may display unusual mass and weight values without, a reason for the massive size of Elliptical galaxies. Relativistic nuclear electrons forming the binding flux between protons, and thus harbouring the binding energy, explains the Universal Gravitational Dipole, the stability of isotopes, the strangeness of Technetium, the accelerating universal expansion, and the huge question marks (together with quarks, to my mind) over "meson forces" and finally, the God Particle. Science has allowed "phlogistons" to proliferate and stall progress, or Mainstream is posturing to maintain covert intellectual property beyond suspicion. Before you say it, Einstein was also a "Conspiracy Theorist" before the term forced Scientific Goose Stepping as an alternative to labelling and marginalisation.

It may be that all force is one force, and the sub-atomic physics here conjectured explains how. Unexplained is mp = 1830.me. This magic number, to whatever precision necessary, may be required to bring the Universe as we know it into manifestation. Genuine scientists, the ilk of Albert Einstein (1879-1955), seek understanding despite the social environment (IDEAS AND OPINIONS, The World as I See It, pp 10-11 "This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, ... I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvellous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."). It may also be as much a coincidence as the first free living cytoplasm + DNA assembling in the tiny puddles forming on early Earth, bringing forth cyanobacteria, oxygen and the first rains 3800 MYA. To my mind, a loris, possibly our earliest terrestrial ancestor, has a better chance of trouncing the World Chess Champion by sheer mimicry.

For those who think about these alternative postulates without relying on prejudice, some answers at least may begin their evolution with this effort.
 

[Markus Hanke]

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

A. You mean:
E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 for the check mark, presumably, or the rest does not follow.

This is what I wrote, using a square root.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

This only supports my conjecture that a neither the "light" quantum NOR the neutrino its own antiparticle.

The photon is its own antiparticle, since it is a massless spin-1 boson without electric charge. The neutrino on the other hand has non-vanishing rest mass, and it also differs in handedness - all neutrinos are left-handed, and all antineutrinos a right-handed, so they are distinct particles.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

neutrinos have flip-flopped too many times for confidence in current Mainstream opinion, and even redeployed as, not one but three, quarks

Neutrinos are elementary particles, they are not composed of quarks, and do not carry colour charge, so they are not subject to the strong interaction.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

E = c.p and E = -c.p noting that E is no vector.

Of course not. Only the energy-momentum vector is a 4-vector.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

G.m/r.c^2 = 1

I don’t know what you mean, since obviously

\[\lim _{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{GM}{rc^{2}}\rightarrow \infty\]

To be honest, the rest of your post was so garbled that I can make little to no sense of it at all, hence I can’t comment.

[joigus]

7 hours ago, Olorin said:

Before you say it, Einstein was also a "Conspiracy Theorist" before the term forced Scientific Goose Stepping as an alternative to labelling and marginalisation.

conspiracy theorist

a person who believes in conspiracy theories

conspiracy theory

the belief that a secret but powerful organization is responsible for an event

I don't think Einstein can be called a conspiracy theorist in any sense. He was a theorist of the highest calibre.

Science has nothing to do with goose stepping. There are discussions, arguments going back and forth, different approaches and interpretations.

Well established areas of science may look to the novice as goose stepping. They are just agreement, bundled together by evidence.

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, Olorin said:

You mean:
E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2 for the check mark, presumably, or the rest does not follow.

It might be a good idea if you learned some maths- at least the sort that is available on a 2$ pocket calculator- before you set out to disprove physics.

That's not a check mark, it's a square root symbol.

8 hours ago, Olorin said:

(neutrinos have flip-flopped too many times for confidence in current Mainstream opinion, and even redeployed as, not one but three, quarks. Do you wonder at my scepticism? Initially, Mainstream conjecture held that neutrinos were massless/speed c which is none or both, and explained the range of energies of Beta rays):

OK, so science changes in the presence of new information  more than you want it to.
 

 

8 hours ago, Olorin said:

Mainstream is posturing to maintain covert intellectual property beyond suspicion.

OK so science changes less than you want it to.

It seems you have a problem that is nothing to do with science.

[Olorin]

This relation is derived taking the square root of both sides of the source, which implies that the derived relation quoted requires a plus or minus sign before the square root sign. Seems to me that negative mass or negative energy are implied, as well as the accepted positive. It also seems to maintain conservation since all manifestations exists zero-sum. This becomes anomalous with our new species of neutrinos, as is assymetry and the gravitational monopole manifest in our unique galaxy where no antimatter can exist very long, without mentioning the initial velocity velocity of the matter as Hubble proposed, which is thousands of times light speed, which by m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is imaginary in every sense of the word.

[Olorin]

John Cuthbert said:

"It might be a good idea if you learned some maths- at least the sort that is available on a 2$ pocket calculator- before you set out to disprove physics."

I need to learn how to reply to posts. Concerning some of physics, and even some of what passes for mathematics, there are some serious doubts. For instance:

E^2 = m^2.c^4 + c^2.p^2

This relation is used to derive the square root of both sides, which by ignoring "NaN" terms (computer shprack for “indeterminate”) at least implies that the derived relation quoted as complete requires a plus or minus sign before the square root sign as is normally done by mathematicians. Seems to me that negative mass or negative energy are implied, as well as the accepted positive, and the NaN terms imply what pair production evidences, matter IS energy in a stable form, BUT ONLY as four distinct particles with negating mirror images. Is it so difficult to conceive a possibly complete symmetry plus complete conservation to photons, and a Universal status quo through recycling? A Steady State Theory was also Einstein’s quest, but antiphotons came in too late.

The so called "evidence" of both "quarks" and "asymmetric matter-antimatter reaction" is unconvincing, but so is the existence of neutrons in the nucleus, rather than protons bound by electron flux with apprpopriate wavelength. These are ejected or smashed out in a plethora of combinations, containing various energies, and sporting at best a 10.3 minute half-life. The relation supplied by John Cuthbert properly stated seems to maintain conservation since all manifestations exists zero-sum, very obviously in pair production, and completed with the potential energy above the relative singularity (E = m0.c^2). The problem is the erroneous Gravitational monopole, the preposterous nuclear neutron and its necessary entourage of unbelievable reasons why all that positive charge can live happily ever after, our explanation of Universal expansion and the LACK thereof for ACCELERATION, again with an entourage of anomaly quenching hypotheses (phlogistons). The gravitational monopole apparent within our unique galaxy, where antimatter annihilates, is akin to Euclidean Mechanics, which fell to the constancy of c, which universal expansion made manifest (“Light” has a constant speed c regardless of the velocity of the source. This was Einstein’s postulate and clue to the required induction of Relativity).

Emanuel Lasker and Albert Einstein argued for eight years in Bern, Switzerland on this issue. E.M. maintained that time & space were absolute, and that if a true vacuum existed anywhere in the Universe, light speed would be infinite there. EL could not accept the space-time implication, which AE said only about 8 people could understand. EL escaped Hitler going to Russia. They became the masters of Chess until Bobby Fischer 1972. Einstein went to the US. They became the masters of the (atomic) military-industrial complex for s short time. In the eyes of the world it took an Atom Bomb to settle the question AE and EL varied on, not to mention a world war to promote the $2 billion cost. Given that we are all happy with Einstein now, why are we accepting the initial velocity of the Universal material as Hubble proposed, which is thousands of times light speed? Einstein obviously couldn’t. By m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), the materialising mass is imaginary in every sense of the word? But by my hypotheses (I claim no more) the Universe could have reaches its present status quo beginning as “Light”, which ancient traditions maintained, possibly from the source Plato recorded in “Critias and Timaeus”, and Aristotle denounced.

Before 1945, about a dozen people had any clue about Relativity, and the Gadget remained top secret since 1939. It was created on Einstein’s suggestion IN CASE Hitler got if first, as evidenced by Hitler’s activities in Czechoslovakia (a uranium source), and Hitler should prove Einstein correct, gaining Global domination by sheer force! These facts alone suggest that certain knowledge may easily cause the usurping of Global Power.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

We’re not a conspiracy site and the rules of speculations requires that it be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. All I see here is assertion.

If you want to vent about what you consider to be wrong with physics and tell stories, go start a blog somewhere. It’s not what we do here.

 

Don’t re-introduce this topic.