[Physics] Cubic Atomic Model + Theory

Thu May 7 15:51:00 CEST 2020

I must say that while I don't think this is really the point of topic, I
will say that at this point we don't even know what the speed of light is
except in a localized context... And even at that it has been unequivocally
proven that this so called constant that we refer to as the speed of light
is not a constant and is highly variable even in this localized context. (G
has had similar results, but there's another book for that.) The treatment
of the C topic is included and is very on point in the book to which I
referred to by DeMeo.

Just get the book - it's not going to damage you to imbibe a relatively
short and interesting history lesson and then see where you stand post
facto.

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:09 AM Tom Hollings <carmam at tiscali.co.uk> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200507/bbf8f750/attachment.html>