On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh < This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it wrote: One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be. Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle. It cannot be both. Why not? One has to either explain how a wave can give an impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently. A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird. A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird. Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point, this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in this sense, though it exhibits properties of both. The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption now appears to be poor. The problem has been our lack of imagination.  Newton's particle was a little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for mathematizing gravity.  Maxwell & all his followers recognized that waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc. These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational belief in the aether in the 19th Century. So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dear Maxwell:  Lorentz's explanation for the nil result of the M-M experiment allowed that _object_s will contract due to velocity (sic).  His equation, that forms the diviser under E = mc^2, disregards the need for an EXPANSION of each _object_ through the 180 degrees of the apparatus's rotation in a horizontal plane.  That is like your conundrum with the 1 and 0 , but without a -1.  Lorentz thought that was just fine, because he was biased to believe that since 'c' is the maximum velocity (sic), _object_s would only need to contract (sic). Interferometers are part of my niche.  Because waves have both crests and valleys they indeed have 1s, 0s, and minus1s.  But the sine curve variation of the true photon _base_d light is due to angular variation in going to the point of view on the target, not due to the varying longitudinal vibrations of the waves .  — NoEinstein — Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4... Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... No waves, just timing differences.  No photons either.  Gauss & Weber were on the right track.  The LT is simply a kludge to squeeze a two- time problem down to a one-time point.  As Clerk-Maxwell pointed out in his Intro to his treatise:  the most significant experimental fact of EM is that electrical effects occur at a finite separation in space AND time.

Dear jem:  The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether.  But such experiment simply lacked a control!  By my invalidation of the MM apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the fundamental energy form in the Universe!  But the ether ISN’T a fixed “grid” against which events can be measured.  Rather it varies in density and flow closely matching the massive _object_s that are in the cosmos.  Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like” voids between the galaxies.  Those are the areas from which the ether coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter.  So, the ether density in those places is nil.  If light required ether as a “medium” of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the voids.  But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether, or through the voids. The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of the ripple pattern of interference.  But this is due to the varying amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides the photons come.  Because photons are composed of clumps of ether units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing photons.  That is why photons can bend (like waves….  — NoEinstein — Scientists create theories that describe Nature.  Other scientists, who understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain the highlights of the theories to the lay public.  Certain members of the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in - coffee-table books.  Then when their self-evaluated improved theories get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science suppresses new ideas. Sound familiar?  Read more about it here - www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

| Dear jem:  The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether.  But such | experiment simply lacked a control!  By my invalidation of the MM | apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the | fundamental energy form in the Universe!  But the ether ISN’T a fixed | “grid” against which events can be measured.  Rather it varies in | density and flow closely matching the massive _object_s that are in the | cosmos.  Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like” | voids between the galaxies.  Those are the areas from which the ether | coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter.  So, the ether | density in those places is nil.  If light required ether as a “medium” | of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the | voids.  But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether, | or through the voids. | | The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns | caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the | “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of | the ripple pattern of interference.  But this is due to the varying | amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides | the photons come.  Because photons are composed of clumps of ether | units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and | because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the | atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing | photons.  That is why photons can bend (like waves….  — NoEinstein — | | Scientists create theories that describe Nature.  Other scientists, who | understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain | the highlights of the theories to the lay public.  Certain members of | the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas | from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories | using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in | - coffee-table books.  Then when their self-evaluated improved | theories get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science | suppresses new ideas. | | Sound familiar?  Read more about it here - | www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v? A. Because it is true. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the time for each journey is the same? A. Because he was a crackpot, unskilled and unaware of it.

| Dear jem:  The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether.  But such | experiment simply lacked a control!  By my invalidation of the MM | apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the | fundamental energy form in the Universe!  But the ether ISN’T a fixed | “grid” against which events can be measured.  Rather it varies in | density and flow closely matching the massive _object_s that are in the | cosmos.  Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like” | voids between the galaxies.  Those are the areas from which the ether | coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter.  So, the ether | density in those places is nil.  If light required ether as a “medium” | of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the | voids.  But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether, | or through the voids. | | The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns | caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the | “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of | the ripple pattern of interference.  But this is due to the varying | amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides | the photons come.  Because photons are composed of clumps of ether | units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and | because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the | atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing | photons.  That is why photons can bend (like waves….  — NoEinstein — | | Scientists create theories that describe Nature.  Other scientists, who | understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain | the highlights of the theories to the lay public.  Certain members of | the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas | from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories | using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in | - coffee-table books.  Then when their self-evaluated improved | theories get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science | suppresses new ideas. | | Sound familiar?  Read more about it here - |www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v? A. Because it is true. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the time for each journey is the same? Fucking liar.

| Dear jem:  The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether.  But such | experiment simply lacked a control!  By my invalidation of the MM | apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the | fundamental energy form in the Universe!  But the ether ISN’T a fixed | “grid” against which events can be measured.  Rather it varies in | density and flow closely matching the massive _object_s that are in the | cosmos.  Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like” | voids between the galaxies.  Those are the areas from which the ether | coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter.  So, the ether | density in those places is nil.  If light required ether as a “medium” | of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the | voids.  But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether, | or through the voids. | | The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns | caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the | “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of | the ripple pattern of interference.  But this is due to the varying | amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides | the photons come.  Because photons are composed of clumps of ether | units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and | because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the | atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing | photons.  That is why photons can bend (like waves….  — NoEinstein — | | Scientists create theories that describe Nature.  Other scientists, who | understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain | the highlights of the theories to the lay public.  Certain members of | the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas | from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories | using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in | - coffee-table books.  Then when their self-evaluated improved | theories get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science | suppresses new ideas. | | Sound familiar?  Read more about it here - |www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v? A. Because it is true. Q. Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the time for each journey is the same? Fucking liar.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Light is a duel force. It is unified EM force. Mitch Raemsch

I like learning about, say, “ gravitational lensing ”, shown here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Gravitational_lens... “ Bending light around a massive _object_ from a distant source.   The orange arrows show the apparent position of the background source.   The white arrows show the path of the light   from the true position of the source. ” Why ? you ask. Because cosmology is fun, gadgets are fun, ultra-precise GPS clocks / metersticks are fun. Trashing the IPK ( International Prototype Kilogram ) in favor of an ultra-precise gravimeter ( i.e. an accelerometer ) in a vacuum and a huge watt-balance in a vacuum is just plain fun. Deep thinkers ( a.k.a. kooks ) like physics for how it reveals “ the mind of God [ and man ] ”. Imagine two moons orbiting the earth. It's just simple gravity, right ? Until they collide.. then it's fireworks.