Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Tom Roberts' Proposed Experiments to Detect RoS Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:38:25 +0200 Lines: 52 Message-ID: References: <8936340a-6544-481a-ae07-9cbf0a9f98dc@googlegroups.com> <-YGdnaev0KNCPzvKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <9K-dndvUF8Qu6jXKnZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net o8KjP2zUPF/LE1S0cMVPTwvon2TY+TXXAdSzGDCsaz9ocq0OBT Cancel-Lock: sha1:r8h3+9s39t+EktBdzxiWy1YxGJI= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:391218 Am 29.08.2016 07:15, schrieb JanPB: >>>>> the mainstream has invented things like "Dark Energy& Mass" that they Predict will have (NO DETECTABLE PROPERTIES " to balance their EQUATIONS >>>>> >>>>> MAGIC .......... >>>> >>>> They invented length and time contractions in order to try to make sense >>>> of the MMX null result and avoid the real and obvious explanation that >>>> light is essentially ballistic. >>> >>> And of course nobody noticed this except you. >> >> No, there have been quite a few physicists, who had the believe, that >> light behaves like ballistic particles. Among them was actually Newton. > > I meant today. > You want to say, there is no recent physicists, who supports light particle ideas or 'emission theory of light' ? This is most likely wrong, too. As a matter of fact, I do not know, if there are some (or many) supporters of similar concepts today. But Google certainly spits out something... like e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory "Experimental verification of ballistic theories of light in Russia and the soviet union" http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0030400X14010135 http://worldnpa.org/the-ritz-ballistic-theory-adjusting-the-speed-of-light-to-c-near-the-earth-and-other-celestial-bodies-3/ I personally don't think, that light is carried by particles. But if light moves with constant velocity, this would indicate the existence of a mechanism, which governs the velocity on the way of the beam. This would also need to provide additional energy, to keep the beam at constant velocity. This invisible energy could actually be called 'dark energy'. So I would agree with this name for such an assumed mechanism.