[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

Thu May 7 14:36:16 CEST 2020

Tom,

It's a good analogy, but I would interpret the inability to exceed light 
speed the other way round. The background viscosity (call it friction of 
the aether if you prefer) imposes a maximm speed of travel through it 
exactly like a skydiver reaching maximum velocity in the air. This means 
that where the viscosity is greatest, the maximum velocity will be zero 
metres per second - even though that will be the local light speed. Your 
analogy does not cover this usually gravitationally-based explanation 
for black hole photon non-emission (although I do think that photons can 
escape, just). However, it would do so if you limited the speed of your 
E/M motive force to be the same as its gravitatonally-limited speed.

Cheers
Mike

On 2020-05-07 12:09, Tom Hollings wrote:
> Sorenta, I am with Ilja here. I have for many years been saying that
> Einstein's SRT is wrong. The mainstream scientists ( including one who
> worked at Cern, and whom I started a face to face discussion with,
> before he went back to Cern and continued our discussion by email),
> are at first convinced that they can show me the error of my ways, but
> when they discover that they cannot do that, quite simply because I am
> correct, the conversation just stops, or the emails stop coming.
> 
> I will give you two good examples. The particle accelerator at Cern is
> said to prove that nothing can travel faster than light. They have
> accelerated many particles with it, but can get none of them past
> light speed. The answer is simple. They are trying to accelerate
> something past light speed by using electro magnetism as the motive
> force. The accelerator producing this force is stationary WRT the
> laboratory and the ground et al, therefore cannot possibly push
> anything faster than light speed. As the particle is being pushed (or
> pulled, but I will stick with pushed) to a higher and higher speed,
> the force gets less and less, until at light speed there is no push at
> all. The analogy here is a hockey player, who hits the puck with
> enough force to accelerate it to 50 mph. This is because as he swings
> the hockey stick, the tip is moving at 50 mph. The player he has
> passed the puck to can only swing his stick at 50 mph, and as he
> swings his stick to help the puck along, he finds he cannot make it
> move any faster. This applies to all players in a line hitting the
> puck in the same direction, so it would appear that the puck has a
> maximum speed of 50 mph. Contrast that to a space rocket which carries
> its own engine (motive force). Put briefly, the rocket exhaust (motive
> force) is ejected at 3,000 meters per second, yet the rocket can
> achieve a velocity vastly in excess of that figure.  See
> http://problemswithrelativity.com/#lorentz paragraph four starting
> with "Imagine now a space rocket..."
> 
> I have posted that link on here previously, but got no reply. I wonder
> why.
> 
> Tom Hollings
> 
>> I must say that your reply has left me completely flabbergasted and
>> in dismay Ilja. I don't understand how anyone could take that
>> approach in life and at any stage of life. 😫
>> 
>> I believe there are various options for coming to the truth
>> personally for any researcher. One thing that became clear to me
>> with a survey and study of these various and many experimenters is
>> that there are tests that can be performed by people with smaller or
>> even shoestring budgets to validate or invalidate the null or
>> non-null results (depending on which side of the fence you are on)
>> and ultimately come to the truth without relying on anyone else from
>> any camp. I believe in being as being as free from bias and
>> unshackled by preconceptions as possible (although I realize that as
>> a human and with cultures the way they are it's never possible to
>> completely succeed in this) and I have devised some of my own
>> experiments based around this information and data that I think can
>> provide further insight into the situation.
>> 
>> A sever problem always arises when we place our trust, somewhat
>> blindly, into so-called research that appears now to have had
>> scientifically impure motivations. I don't want to use the term evil
>> as you did (perhaps even facetiously?), but I suppose it ultimately
>> depends on your personal connotations of this word.
>> 
>> Whenever there is clear evidence of such things it is, or should be,
>> our personal and societal imperative to change things if we hope to
>> leave the world in an improved state, even if it threatens our
>> livelihood.
>> 
>> For some this presents a moral dilemma, perhaps akin to the
>> professional clergyman that has realized that his faith is no longer
>> correct and another option is, such as an unpaid lay ministry
>> religion, and now must chose to reeducate themself and then place in
>> jeopardy their ability to put food on the table for their family. I
>> realize that this is all difficult, but it is an important
>> crossroads that is personally revelatory and ultimately avails an
>> opportunity to grow if one choses to go down this path of deciding
>> to find the truth no matter the cost and insomuch that this pursuit
>> is indeed guided by factual data and truth.
>> 
>> The book is a small cost to pay and if the cost is too much for you,
>> I would be willing to order and send you a copy if you decide
>> otherwise. A keen mind that discovers truth after it has been hidden
>> from them has an enormity of useful perspective and counsel to offer
>> if not action to take that will evoke much good.
>> 
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 7:44 AM Ilja Schmelzer <
>> ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2020-05-06 14:19 GMT+06:30, Soretna < illumination00 at gmail.com>:
>>>> Ilja there are many, many non-null results with superior tooling
>>> all the
>>>> way up into this century / millennium. I think you would
>>> seriously
>>>> reconsider your thought process if you would review this
>>> expansive study of
>>>> history from back then until now.
>>> 
>>> No, simply because I have made this bet from the start:  I will
>>> accept
>>> experimental and observational evidence as presented and accepted
>>> by
>>> the mainstream.
>>> 
>>> Of course, with some probability this will be the wrong bet.  Such
>>> is
>>> life.  Anyway, as an outsider I have no chance to win in that
>>> playing
>>> field.
>>> 
>>> And if these evil mainstream scientists conspire to suppress the
>>> results of true experiments, my chances are even lower, close to
>>> complete zero.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics