Light

Hello all,
I have read your FAQ's but not read the suggested book.I do have a few questions though.

It would appear that if "mainstream " science is mistaken with the conclusions it has drawn from astronomical observations that its understanding of light and in particular micro wave radiation  is fundamentally flawed.

I am interested in your explanation of the following observations:
1)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
2)The Micro Wave background Radiation readings
3)Red and Blue shift of observed galaxies

Most importantly:
4)Your conclusions on the classic "Two slit " light experiment.

Sorry if you would rather these Q's in individual threads but they all relate to the inherent nature of observed physical phenomena.Of particular interest is testable theory with the maths please.

Thomo

I don't get it.  Why must light behave differently on FE than RE?

because light exists on an RE not an FE .. FE's dont exist

I don't get it.  Why must light behave differently on FE than RE?

Ansering a question with a question is not the right way to debate.

He asked
I am interested in your explanation of the following observations:
1)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury
2)The Micro Wave background Radiation readings
3)Red and Blue shift of observed galaxies

Most importantly:
4)Your conclusions on the classic "Two slit " light experiment.

I'd like to know why those questions have been asked too.

I don't get it.  Why must light behave differently on FE than RE?

Because if your theory is correct then the conclusions that mainstream science has drawn from both their observations and from their understanding of the nature of light and gravity are flawed.I am interested in your defense of your ideas.

OK, lets do it one at a time.

"1)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury"
The general or widely held thought is that Mercury is in an orbit of the Sun.The observed Precession is within 0.3 arc-secs per century of the predicted.

How does your theory explain the observations of the tracking of Mercury and how well does it predict Mercuries position relative to our Frame of Reference?

Because if your theory is correct then the conclusions that mainstream science has drawn from both their observations and from their understanding of the nature of light...are flawed.

How about stating why.

[/quote]
How about stating why.
[/quote]

I am attempting that, so lets as I said do them one at a time as they are all related inquiries.

As I said :

>>>"1)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury"
The general or widely held thought is that Mercury is in an orbit of the Sun.The observed Precession is within 0.3 arc-secs per century of the predicted.

How does your theory explain the observations of the tracking of Mercury and how well does it predict Mercuries position relative to our Frame of Reference?<<<

Could you answer that , the first question and then we'll progress?
I am looking forward to a polite conversation.

Thomo

oo .. NONE of you can answer that, not even tom

Because if your theory is correct then the conclusions that mainstream science has drawn from both their observations and from their understanding of the nature of light and gravity are flawed.I am interested in your defense of your ideas.

I don't want to go through 5 questions to get to the answer.  Why, if the earth is flat, must Relativity be wrong?

Quote from: Thomo on March 13, 2007, 12:12:39 AM

Because if your theory is correct then the conclusions that mainstream science has drawn from both their observations and from their understanding of the nature of light and gravity are flawed.I am interested in your defense of your ideas.

I don't want to go through 5 questions to get to the answer.  Why, if the earth is flat, must Relativity be wrong?

Well dont answer 5 just the first one that I have asked three times.
That one will do me fine.

Anyone?

Pity, was hoping for a considered and testable explanation.

Why don't you just skip ahead to the double slit experiment, your most important point.  Why does the earth being flat mean the results will be different?

Why don't you just skip ahead to the double slit experiment, your most important point.  Why does the earth being flat mean the results will be different?

Evening Engineer,

The double slit is the most important but I did have a structure to the order in the questions .
It would be the simplest way to present "mainstream" point of views and I would rather not get side tracked into semantics or side issues .
"Why does the earth being flat mean the results will be different?"...its all to do with the interpretation of the observed Universe in light of the understood nature of light and how its affected by relative displacement ,FOR's and gravity ,so first things first ....

>>>"1)Precession of the perihelion of Mercury"
The general or widely held thought is that Mercury is in an orbit of the Sun.The observed Precession is within 0.3 arc-secs per century of the predicted.

How does your theory explain the observations of the tracking of Mercury and how well does it predict Mercuries position relative to our Frame of Reference?<<<


If you don't have an answer fine, but just say so, lets not muddy the waters so to speak.

General Relativity.

General Relativity.

That is a subject but cant be an answer its just a throw away comment,  as GR simply doesn't allow for the observed motions of Mercury if  and I quote:
"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator,"

1)You don't have enough mass there
2)Your "counter mass" would influence them dramatically

There are others but theyll do to start.

Was that so hard?  Now do the others.

Sorry? What? You haven't even answered the first queston yet. (Stating the name of a theory without pointing out how that theory leads to the observable phenomenon in question isn't really much of an answer)

The math of GR is what predicts the precession.  What more do you want?

The math of GR is what predicts the precession.  What more do you want?

Evening Engineer,

Actually the maths of GR  and Newtonian physics demand that you are incorrect.

How so?

Hey Engineer,

How you are answering questions it has only become obvious that you either, don't know what you are talking about and are stalling to frustrate the person you are debating with, or too stupid to understand the word debate. So which is it?

Otherwise you would have explained how General Relativity explains a planet orbiting a 32 mile wide sun that is 3000 miles above earth... without being affected by earth itself.

Since experiments like the following, which you can do in your home, demonstrate all things with mass have gravity, you can not discount the Earth's gravitational effect on Mercury.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

He asked how I explain the precession.  I use GR to do so.  Care to show me how I am wrong?

He asked how I explain the precession.  I use GR to do so.  Care to show me how I am wrong?

Not really I'd still like to see your explanation of how you us GR to do so before I will comment on it further. Unless you can explain... you haven't done shit. You also still haven't answered anything.

delta(psidot) = .0383/RT

Which is the relativistic correction factor in the precession, which agrees with observations.

delta(psidot) = .0383/RT

Which is the relativistic correction factor in the precession, which agrees with observations.

This fits into FE how exactly... you'll have to explain it to me I'm afraid I don't understand FE as well as you. I understand RE great... but my FE is still a bit sketchy about some of the... well lets be honest most of the details, they seem to be missing... but don't tell Tom I think it will upset him.

Hey Engineer,

How you are answering questions it has only become obvious that you either, don't know what you are talking about and are stalling to frustrate the person you are debating with, or too stupid to understand the word debate. So which is it?

Otherwise you would have explained how General Relativity explains a planet orbiting a 32 mile wide sun that is 3000 miles above earth... without being affected by earth itself.

Since experiments like the following, which you can do in your home, demonstrate all things with mass have gravity, you can not discount the Earth's gravitational effect on Mercury.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

Was this missed?

delta(psidot) = .0383/RT

Which is the relativistic correction factor in the precession, which agrees with observations.

Cmon Engineer, you're really close to giving a half-reasonable answer, now you just have to elaborate on what that equation means and implies, and how that supports your FE model (or supports the observation of the precession of mercury's perihelion).

Ditch the two-sentence answers and your condescending attitude.  Maybe then we can have a real debate.  On a side note - based on the way you answer people - I really doubt you believe in FE.  If you did you'd support your claims, but you're really just looking to frustrate people...  How's that workin' out for ya?

Quote from: Marinade on March 15, 2007, 11:35:39 AM

Hey Engineer,

How you are answering questions it has only become obvious that you either, don't know what you are talking about and are stalling to frustrate the person you are debating with, or too stupid to understand the word debate. So which is it?

Otherwise you would have explained how General Relativity explains a planet orbiting a 32 mile wide sun that is 3000 miles above earth... without being affected by earth itself.

Since experiments like the following, which you can do in your home, demonstrate all things with mass have gravity, you can not discount the Earth's gravitational effect on Mercury.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foobar/

Was this missed?

No I think either the Engineer can't answer that, or can't understand that. I am not sure which.

you're really just looking to frustrate people...  How's that workin' out for ya?

It's so easy to frustrate people when they have no idea what they are talking about. 

For example, your "why does a rocket have to eject mass?" statement, Matrixfart's "The earth is not an inertial frame, therefore, newton's laws prove it is impossible", the old "The earth would accelerate past the speed of light", or all the other members who can't look up an equation or do any research for themselves.