## Sunday, January 1, 2012

### Simply Relative

Way out in space, far from the gravitational influences of large massive astral bodies we find a fellow moving along at one third the speed of light (c if you must).  We find another fellow moving along at one third the speed of light with respect to the first fellow. Now we encounter a third fellow moving along at one third the speed of light with respect to the second fellow.  All these fellows are moving along the +x axis of a co-ordinate system and all in the same direction.
If the first fellow was moving along at 1/3 the speed of light with respect to the newly constructed frame of reference then the last one was moving at “c” with respect to the same system.  Of course if we were to use the Lorentz transforms to calculate the length contraction seen by the fellow in the middle we would see him finding that the other two guys were somewhat distorted in their direction of travel, right?
What does the first fellow see when looking at the third one?  He sees a substantially flattened third guy.  What does an observer sitting at the point of origin of the new co-ordinate system see with regard to the third guy?  Firstly this guy is moving away at the sped of light so theoretically he can’t be seen by the observer stationary at the point of origin but I he could the fellow would be completely flattened and of such a large mass as to be infinite!
Obviously what is being seen by any of the fellow concerning any of the others is without merit and has no meaning as to the elongation, contraction, mass increase or decrease at all!  What we observe has no bearing on the physical condition of what it is that we are observing.  The very fact that we are observing some occurrence and that our perspective somehow changes the physical nature of the observed object is absolutely ridiculous.
Lorentz as well as Einstein was selling a bill of goods, a parlor trick at best.  Smoke and mirrors had nothing on them.  The math doesn’t work, the logic doesn’t work, our observing from some arbitrary perspective doesn’t change the world or anything in it by virtue of our having observed it.
It’s all in the perspective versus the real world.  It’s all about what’s relative. Simply put, it’s about relativity and it’s simple!
If you can set aside the decades of indoctrination by false prophets (perhaps they ar simply misguided or just simply parrots), you can easily understand that every thing in the universe has its own frame of reference and if you compare any other one to it you must keep in mind that your relative perspective is what changes, not the object or event that is being observed. Q.E.D.

Bill McKee

## Saturday, December 31, 2011

### LENGTH CONTRACTION?

There is a simple answer here. Consider two planets moving extremely rapidly past one another. Which one is suffering a length contraction?  Are both moving with regard to the Local Space Partition? Is only one moving at this breakneck speed?  Sorry Charlie, there's no length contraction evident here or anywhere else.  You might also consider the physics and mechanism that would lengthen the subject once speedy object as it slowed down.  What mechanism exactly would cause it to stretch out?  Time to get real, No?

Bill McKee

## Friday, December 30, 2011

### PHOTON MASS

Let's clear up a bit of misunderstanding about PHOTONS.  These minuscule particles, and they are particles albeit small in stature, possess MASS!  If we look at the idea that they have an energy component (which is hardly controversial) then we also understand that mass in motion has a momentum as well as energy per NEWTON (as well as Einstein and others of some renowned).  The human eye as well as those of other creatures with vision capabilities see an ENERGY LEVEL, NOT COLOR!!  PHOTONS don;t have a color, nor a vibration, nor an oscillation, nor a wavelength.  They are simply bits of fast moving matter with a kinetic energy.

Bill McKee

## Thursday, December 29, 2011

### E≠mc2

Finally it's time for all good physicists to come to the realization that e does not equal mc^2 when it comes to astrophysics. Indeed Einstein's early postulations were unfounded but not challenged at the time.  If you read his original papers on the subject of Special Relativity you'll find no basis for his conclusions.  Simple "thought" experiments similar to the ones he used for his proofs easily dismiss his as not persuasive at all.

Bill McKee

## Wednesday, December 28, 2011

### relativity and speed of light

It appears that many cosmologists and physicists are waking up and understanding that the speed of light "c" is no longer a sacred cow but simply a cow.  c is not an astral speed limit nor is it a constant in the universe. Finally they're waking up.

Bill

## Tuesday, December 27, 2011

### ON LIGHT

ABSTRACT
The speed of light, photon mass, and photon energy are discussed with long held hypotheses considered and a new approach presented.
KEY WORD AND PHRASES
light, photon, Einstein, Newton, velocity, mass, photopic, energy, wavelength, frequency, electromagnetic
KEY MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS USED
f=1/λ, where f is frequency and λ is wavelength
e=1/2 mv2, (from Newton) where e is energy, m is mass and v is velocity
e=mc2 , (from Einstein) where c is the speed of light (using an approximate value of 300 km/s)
vn=, where vn, is the velocity using Newton’s equation
BACKGROUND
This work intends to look at much of the work done by many of our scientists in the past.  It is an attempt to clarify some concepts and hypotheses that have confused many for a long time.  Perhaps we can put some light on the subject.
Let’s begin with Max Planck whose work in black body radiation is of particular interest.  He developed an understanding about the relationship of the energy level of light verses the “frequency” of that light.  The prevailing idea at that time was that light was to be found as “waves”.  He, on the other hand, allowed that perhaps it was discrete particles which have come to be known as photons in quantum theory.
LET’S BEGIN
Let’s take a broad range of wavelengths of light that we as humans particularly appreciate and that is the one we call the photopic region of the light range.  This is the range where normal human vision is found.  Let’s consider it to be from 400 to 760 nm in wavelength; which is our standard convention for identifying it.
If we consider light to be an electromagnetic form of radiation, which I don’t, then we would use the commonly used relationship of frequency being the reciprocal of the wavelength of the subject radiation.
This would lead us to have a frequency range therefore of   2.5 x 106   to 1.33 x 106 Hz.  I wonder: if light was truly an electromagnetic form of radiation, would we be able to “see” radio transmitters sending out their messages in the range bounded by the aforementioned frequency range?
Let us for a while allow the conventional relationships to be considered valid and proceed.  We have the relationship that is Planck’s constant.  If we take that along with the range of light given above, we end up with an energy range of from 1.66 x 10-27 to 8.83 x 10-28 joules.  We can just as easily use eV by changing the value of the constant we use thus yielding the range of from 1.034 x 10-8 to 5.514 x 10-0 eV.
Now if we remember back to the days of Isaac Newton we may recall that his relationship of energy to a body mass and velocity is given by e=1/2 mv2.  If we wish to use Albert Einstein’s theory it looks like e=mc2 wherein the v in this case is restricted to what has been termed the speed of light or approx 300 km/s.  We’ll speak more on this later.
If we solve for the mass of the photons using the median photopic velocity (the speed of light as given by Einstein) and the Einstein equation e=mc2 we get:
m=e/c2
Or a nominal value for the quantum mass to be 1.339 x 10-44 g. Assuming for a moment that this is correct then we can determine the range of velocities that would satisfy the Newton approach wherein vn=  where vn is the velocity according to Newton’s approach.
Using the “nominal” mass value, let’s find the range of velocities that will make up the photopic range of light.  The range is found to be from 4.975 x 108 to 3.633 x 108 m/s.

Why did I move to the Newtonian approach where the velocities differ?  Because if one looks at a solar orb at rest in the cosmos, it is emitting photons of a vast variety of wavelengths (or frequencies).  The photons are emitted with their characteristic wavelengths assigned by the solar orb and the velocities at which they are being emitted.
I assign the mass of the photons to be of equal value since if they are not then the emission energies would have to be constant and the photon mass changed to allow for the spectrum we have so judiciously determined by decades of experimentation and study.
One can understand that if we were to approach this solar orb at a high velocity we would find the characteristic blue shift and conversely if receding from it find the appropriate red shift.
Since the solar orb is simply residing as rest in space and emitting photons in a most constant manner, the only thing changing to allow for these apparent shifts in spectrum is the relative velocity between the emission source and the mobile observer, us.
This certainly brings into suspicion the constancy of the speed of light that has been championed by so many “physicists” for these many decades since Einstein first floated his hypothesis.  Not only does the speed of light vary but it is also does not define a speed limit within the Cosmos.
CONCLUSION
Light (photons) is not an electromagnetic form of radiation but particulate in nature. An intensive study concerning the proper form and structure of mathematical formulations must be undertaken to more precisely determine the true value of the photon range of velocities. A careful derivation without regard to or attachment to the rigor offered with regard to an association with those used in electromagnetic theory must be carried out. The wavelength to frequency relationship used within this paper is not presented as correct but only a means of bringing the idea of a variation of light velocity to the reader.
The speed of light in the Universe is not a constant.  No relationship between the velocities of the photon spectrum and any other object of mass within the cosmos should be assumed.  No fixed speed limit exists.
The photons appear to be a specific “color” or wavelength because that color and wavelength has been assigned as what is “seen” be the normal human visual process.  We actually “see” the energy level of the particles of light and not a color or wavelength at all.