[geocentrism] Re: New info for evaluation
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 13:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Dr Jones,
With respect to mass and light?Do you think a new theory of light is then in
order or can we work within Newton & or Einstein?....It just seems a little
paradoxical to me that light exist or has mass if it is moving and if it is not
then it does not exist or have mass... This would seem like creating something
out of nothing when you turn the light on.. what are your thoughts? Could light
be a field rather than a particle or wave? Where in a field the environment
will determine the nature of the field even before the field is created and or
action takes place....ie the positive and negative potential must be present
for a circuit to work.. you cant just send a pulse or wave around the circuit
without both the negative and positive potentials present. Where as in a
particle or wave it must "feel" the environment as it progresses though its
range... like a wave on a beach.... However, experiments such as the double
slit experiment indicate that light "Knows" which slit to go th
rough.
To me this strongly suggest that light works more like a field akin to an
electric circuit with "positive" and "negative " potential poles rather than
either a absolute single particle or wave point of origin, although even in a
circuit wave forms and individual electrons are present, both potential poles
must also be present. Seems we need a better model than Newton or
Einstein??What do you think?
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I missed that article. Here are some other
interesting stuff from Karanev's book:
1) universal expansion cannot be determined from redshift
2) universal background radiation is explained by other things than the big bang
3) If things like black holes were true, they would come in different colors.
IE the larger or denser the black hole the more photons it would trap. There is
no certain amount of gravity that if crossed, suddenly all photons are trapped
while if under that threshhold all photons escape.
Your point number 3 is not true in any gravitational model that links
gravitational attraction to mass. (Both Newton's model and Einstein's model
(GR) have gravity directly proportional to mass, whereas my model has no
dependency on mass.) Although photons have a rest mass of zero, their mass will
increase with speed under Einstein's relativity. Hence, if the photons are
moving (i.e., they exist), then they will have a mass, and if gravitational
attraction depends upon mass, then there will be a field strength that, when
exceeded, will trap them. Newton also regarded light as corpuscular in nature,
so the same would apply under his model, whenever "M" exceeds a certain value.
Neville.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
Other related posts:
