"How Does Light 'Know' How Fast to Travel?"

On 3 Sept, 17:12, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
SR is now a 'principle theory' and as such is
only a mathematical model. It has nothing to say on the subject as to
what physical processes the maths is describing [...]
no alternative physical explanation of what
SR is describing has been put forward

What "physical explanation" would you "put forward" for the fact that
light travels along a straight line? Note you must first "put forward" a
"physical explanation" for what a straight line is.

In SR, the fact that light travels at c is GEOMETRICAL, not "physical",
as is the fact it travels along straight lines.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! The fact
that photons travel at c'=c+v, as the emission theory of light says,
is PHYSICAL and for that reason all relevant physical experiments are
consistent with it, as are the Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Pound-
Rebka experiments for instance. But you are right Roberts Roberts when
you say that Einstein's light postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

cannot be physical since it is inconsistent with all relevant physical
experiments, the Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Pound-Rebka experiments
for instance. And since Einstein's light postulate is not physical,
how could it be characterized? You say it is GEOMETRICAL, I would say
it is FALSE... OK, let Einstein's light postulate be GEOMETRICAL. The
important thing is that Einstein's light postulate is NOT PHYSICAL,
and we agree about it don't we Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev

See "The light Fantastic".

Light is not what you think. It is something you don't think.

There is a change in electronic energy and a photon is out, but to see it
another electronic state has to be there, when it interacts it is without
loss and its point of interaction is random like mattter waves and
shrodinger.

It just aint like what you think: no beams no rays. Just chance of a weak
interaction.

Fynaman said so, and I agree.

ever seen an electron beam diffract? Well light is just the same and
electron is condensed light.

Churchmen don't like it; like holes in nothing and since light is nothing,
we are made of light so we are nothing. So nothing is.
Logic of the anglicans. They do not like being nothing. Nothing exists....

Bang!







"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 3 Sept, 17:12, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
John Kennaugh wrote:
SR is now a 'principle theory' and as such is
only a mathematical model. It has nothing to say on the subject as to
what physical processes the maths is describing [...]
no alternative physical explanation of what
SR is describing has been put forward

What "physical explanation" would you "put forward" for the fact that
light travels along a straight line? Note you must first "put forward" a
"physical explanation" for what a straight line is.

In SR, the fact that light travels at c is GEOMETRICAL, not "physical",
as is the fact it travels along straight lines.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation
(Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation)! The fact
that photons travel at c'=c+v, as the emission theory of light says,
is PHYSICAL and for that reason all relevant physical experiments are
consistent with it, as are the Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Pound-
Rebka experiments for instance. But you are right Roberts Roberts when
you say that Einstein's light postulate

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

cannot be physical since it is inconsistent with all relevant physical
experiments, the Michelson-Morley, Sagnac and Pound-Rebka experiments
for instance. And since Einstein's light postulate is not physical,
how could it be characterized? You say it is GEOMETRICAL, I would say
it is FALSE... OK, let Einstein's light postulate be GEOMETRICAL. The
important thing is that Einstein's light postulate is NOT PHYSICAL,
and we agree about it don't we Roberts Roberts.

Pentcho Valev

"Chris" a écrit dans le message de
. uk...
See "The light Fantastic".

Light is not what you think. It is something you don't think.

There is a change in electronic energy and a photon is out, but to see it
another electronic state has to be there, when it interacts it is without
loss and its point of interaction is random like mattter waves and
shrodinger.

It just aint like what you think: no beams no rays. Just chance of a weak
interaction.

Fynaman said so, and I agree.

ever seen an electron beam diffract? Well light is just the same and
electron is condensed light.

Churchmen don't like it; like holes in nothing and since light is nothing,
we are made of light so we are nothing. So nothing is.
Logic of the anglicans. They do not like being nothing. Nothing exists....


no, nothing doesn't exist as it is nothing.

vincent.thiernesse wrote:
"Chris"
ever seen an electron beam diffract? Well light is just the same and
electron is condensed light.

no, nothing doesn't exist as it is nothing.

But nothing IS "something! Chris is totally wrong about light being
nothing. It is ELECTRONS which are "nothing". And electrons exist.
How can "nothing" exist? Well if you get a hole in your pants the
"hole" is where there is "no" cloth! It is "nothing". So does it not
exist? Hardly. The hole finds it's existence through the very
existence of the pants! Similarly electrons are holes in the Aether!
It is the existence of aether that makes an electron "something".

Benj
(Whose theories of physics have no leftist atheist agenda)

"Benj" a écrit dans le message de
ups.com...

vincent.thiernesse wrote:
"Chris"
ever seen an electron beam diffract? Well light is just the same and
electron is condensed light.

no, nothing doesn't exist as it is nothing.

But nothing IS "something! Chris is totally wrong about light being
nothing. It is ELECTRONS which are "nothing". And electrons exist.
How can "nothing" exist? Well if you get a hole in your pants the
"hole" is where there is "no" cloth! It is "nothing". So does it not
exist? Hardly. The hole finds it's existence through the very
existence of the pants! Similarly electrons are holes in the Aether!
It is the existence of aether that makes an electron "something".


A french song: "mon pantalon est décousu...si ça continue on vera l'trou
d'mon.....pantalon, est décousu, si ça continue on vera l'trou
d'mon.....etc..."

hard to translate: "there is a hole in my pents, if that goes on we'll see
the hole of my....pents"

but does only bad things comes through the things that exist by the loss of
something else ?

@

Vin