Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-16, 12:43 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: That would invalidate Einstein. Yep.
'13-12-16, 12:44 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: The terminology expresses the assumptions of the theorists. The photons were definitely traveling downward, but that's just because the light source was pointed down. They didn't fire some photons up, and then wait for the ballistics to kick in, and get the photons to arc back down and into the collection device. Rather, the light source was pointed down, and the theorists assumed that the photons picked up energy on the way, hence they were "falling". See my previous explanation to Viscount aero.
'13-12-16, 12:49 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: And then, to follow the reasoning, because the downward "falling" photons did not gain any energy on their way down then that proved gravity to be null and irrelevant to the photon's travel. Gravity acting upon the photons would have altered their energy states I am assuming. But no evidence of this was found, hence, Relativity is wrong. If my understanding is correct about their experiment and reasoning then that is quite profound of a finding. That would invalidate Einstein. Light slows as it approaches a mass. Thus the oscillations get closer together. In other words the frequency of the light increases. Thus photons become more energetic. Which is what you would expect. Your assumption is therefore wrong.
'13-12-16, 12:52 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: OK, you win. Defeat suits me just fine in situations like this. Ciao, and good luck! Defeat is bad. You should have changed direction some time earlier. It would have been the sensible thing to have done.
'13-12-16, 16:45 Sparky	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: OK, you win. Defeat suits me just fine in situations like this. Ciao, and good luck! Defeat is bad. You should have changed direction some time earlier. It would have been the sensible thing to have done. Aaaahhh, one more notch on your Narcissistic gun butt, with two last parting shots to the back of the head/mind, as your superior adversary wisely disengages from a no win situation.
'13-12-16, 18:55 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Then would you agree that the propagation velocity is superluminal? Action at a distance violates c. I would agree that if such a thing is true then it would originate in a field. The question is what is it. And is action at distance actually something that happens. The mainstream alleges it does as it proposes that local masses and their gravity affect everything immediately and instantly, no matter how far away things are. To me this paints them into a corner as they have a lot of explaining to do yet they don't really explain it. The prop. velocity of the Aether is the speed of light so how can it also be super-luminal? It cant. Action at a distance does not violate c as the potential field is established in the Aether at c. The acceleration of light and mass is a function of the gradient of the Aether potential fields AT THE LOCAL POSITION of the accelerated object at the time of acceleration. The action at a distance aspect comes from the prior establishment of the pot. field. You can't have it both ways, friend. Either action at a distance exists and violates c or it doesn't exist at all. That is what I asked in my post copied above. So you personally do believe in action at a distance? Ok then that implies a violation of c. If you posit that action at a distance doesn't violate c, which you have done above in your typical pretzel logic fashion, then you must not believe in action at a distance. And you are apparently speaking of 'the local position' which mysteriously sounds as if you're trying to talk about local inertial reference frames without calling it a local inertial reference frame.
'13-12-16, 19:10 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: And then, to follow the reasoning, because the downward "falling" photons did not gain any energy on their way down then that proved gravity to be null and irrelevant to the photon's travel. Gravity acting upon the photons would have altered their energy states I am assuming. But no evidence of this was found, hence, Relativity is wrong. If my understanding is correct about their experiment and reasoning then that is quite profound of a finding. That would invalidate Einstein. Light slows as it approaches a mass. Thus the oscillations get closer together. In other words the frequency of the light increases. Thus photons become more energetic. Which is what you would expect. Your assumption is therefore wrong. Well I never fully understood the experiment and its meaning of "falling" photons. This is another case of science misappropriating meaning to words that do not describe what is actually happening. Photons cannot fall in a literal sense to my knowledge, hence, my discussion with Charles (who you pilloried for no good reason). But more to the point, I never intended to compete with other members about knowledge of the experiment and then be "right." I am searching for clarity, not to parade how "right" I am in front of everyone. If my assumption was incorrect then I am grateful for anyone to please clarify the subject matter. Unlike you, I don't care if I'm wrong. You would benefit, likewise, in eating some humble pie. To that, your explanation actually does make sense and clarifies things further. However it is quite paradoxical--light slows down nearing a mass, not accelerates. This actually further removes gravity from the relationship with light yet excites the wavelength to a higher energy state. Einstein is even more wrong.
'13-12-16, 21:58 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: You can't have it both ways, friend. Either action at a distance exists and violates c or it doesn't exist at all. That is what I asked in my post copied above. So you personally do believe in action at a distance? Ok then that implies a violation of c. If you posit that action at a distance doesn't violate c, which you have done above in your typical pretzel logic fashion, then you must not believe in action at a distance. And you are apparently speaking of 'the local position' which mysteriously sounds as if you're trying to talk about local inertial reference frames without calling it a local inertial reference frame. I have been very clear. The potential field is established at the velocity c.Thus action at a distance DOES NOT violate c. This the second time I have had to say that. Is that enough? When I say local position I merely mean where the accelerated body is. Why do you need to complicate that un-necessarily. You would understand things better if you stopped doing it.
'13-12-16, 22:08 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Well I never fully understood the experiment and its meaning of "falling" photons. This is another case of science misappropriating meaning to words that do not describe what is actually happening. Photons cannot fall in a literal sense to my knowledge, hence, my discussion with Charles (who you pilloried for no good reason). But more to the point, I never intended to compete with other members about knowledge of the experiment and then be "right." I am searching for clarity, not to parade how "right" I am in front of everyone. If my assumption was incorrect then I am grateful for anyone to please clarify the subject matter. Unlike you, I don't care if I'm wrong. You would benefit, likewise, in eating some humble pie. To that, your explanation actually does make sense and clarifies things further. However it is quite paradoxical--light slows down nearing a mass, not accelerates. This actually further removes gravity from the relationship with light yet excites the wavelength to a higher energy state. Einstein is even more wrong. Look, if something is 'falling' to Earth what is happening is that it is accelerating towards Earth. Do you agree? If a tangential light ray bends towards the Sun then it is accelerating towards the Sun. Do you agree? If you agree to both points then a tangential light ray 'falls' towards the Sun. Its simple. Dont complicate it. Charles Chandler pilloried himself. He didn't need any help from me. Einstein was not wrong. He predicted the slowing of light as it approaches a mass. Also the wave length of light is NOT excited to a higher state. It is ATOMS which are excited to higher states. How do you get into such a muddle?
'13-12-17, 00:43 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Well I never fully understood the experiment and its meaning of "falling" photons. This is another case of science misappropriating meaning to words that do not describe what is actually happening. Photons cannot fall in a literal sense to my knowledge, hence, my discussion with Charles (who you pilloried for no good reason). But more to the point, I never intended to compete with other members about knowledge of the experiment and then be "right." I am searching for clarity, not to parade how "right" I am in front of everyone. If my assumption was incorrect then I am grateful for anyone to please clarify the subject matter. Unlike you, I don't care if I'm wrong. You would benefit, likewise, in eating some humble pie. To that, your explanation actually does make sense and clarifies things further. However it is quite paradoxical--light slows down nearing a mass, not accelerates. This actually further removes gravity from the relationship with light yet excites the wavelength to a higher energy state. Einstein is even more wrong. Look, if something is 'falling' to Earth what is happening is that it is accelerating towards Earth. Do you agree? If a tangential light ray bends towards the Sun then it is accelerating towards the Sun. Do you agree? If you agree to both points then a tangential light ray 'falls' towards the Sun. Its simple. Dont complicate it. Charles Chandler pilloried himself. He didn't need any help from me. Einstein was not wrong. He predicted the slowing of light as it approaches a mass. Also the wave length of light is NOT excited to a higher state. It is ATOMS which are excited to higher states. How do you get into such a muddle? Ok I agree with you.
'13-12-17, 00:44 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: You can't have it both ways, friend. Either action at a distance exists and violates c or it doesn't exist at all. That is what I asked in my post copied above. So you personally do believe in action at a distance? Ok then that implies a violation of c. If you posit that action at a distance doesn't violate c, which you have done above in your typical pretzel logic fashion, then you must not believe in action at a distance. And you are apparently speaking of 'the local position' which mysteriously sounds as if you're trying to talk about local inertial reference frames without calling it a local inertial reference frame. I have been very clear. The potential field is established at the velocity c.Thus action at a distance DOES NOT violate c. This the second time I have had to say that. Is that enough? When I say local position I merely mean where the accelerated body is. Why do you need to complicate that un-necessarily. You would understand things better if you stopped doing it. Ok, can we both say that there is no action at a distance, then?
'13-12-17, 03:41 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Charles Chandler pilloried himself. He didn't need any help from me.
'13-12-17, 11:44 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Ok, can we both say that there is no action at a distance, then? NO! NO! NO! Of course there is action at a distance. I have already explained how it occurs.
'13-12-17, 18:51 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Ok, can we both say that there is no action at a distance, then? NO! NO! NO! Of course there is action at a distance. I have already explained how it occurs. Ok and in the field the propagation is at c; I read that. It's just that isn't what action at a distance typically implies. It implies an instantaneous influence across distances. There is no propagation.
'13-12-19, 11:20 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Ok and in the field the propagation is at c; I read that. It's just that isn't what action at a distance typically implies. It implies an instantaneous influence across distances. There is no propagation. So what, in your opinion, does 'action at a distance imply'? In my opinion it simply means that one body causes an action on a second separated body. You always have to complicate things. Why?