Re: Speed of Light?

Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 01:52:57 -0500

Slavek Krepelka wrote:
> To Warren,
>
> I was told at a time that the Quantum Mechanics is more or less based on
> the Kinetic Theory of Gas. I never tried to understand QM from the
> simple reason that I am not all that excited about math. If the QM is
> based on the Kinetic though, then I think I can pull the chair from
> under the QM.
....
> Now let's do some math. For every diatomic molecule of oxygen into the
> burning, we get out either one triatomic molecule of CO2, or two
> triatomic molecules of H2O, or two diatomic molecules of CO.
> So, while the number of molecules increased, while the quantity of
> gaseous atoms increased and while the temperature increased, the
> pressure went down. As far as I am concerned, the heat output decreased
> the size of the molecules.
> When you take into the account 80% heated nitrogen under the glass, the
> evidence is overwhelming.
>
> I do not care for ideal gasses. I am concerned with the real stuff.
>
> Now lets get back to light. How does the Kinetic or QM explain
> refraction of light in gasses? (Red dawn and dusk)
>
> I cannot see that scattering of light off air molecules can refract
> light toward earth. It cannot refract at all, because if it did, the
> mean speed of light in air would have to be much less than C and a laser
> would not work.
>
> I do not say that math of Kinetic or QM is necessarily wrong. Most of it
> is probably correct and some of it very much so. What I say is that the
> interpretation of that math is no good, and that the math may be flawed.
>
> Regards Slavek.
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
Ok, I do not care for Kinetic myself but lets just take one small
phenomena that science can not explain and use our Unified Field Theory
with Light to possibly explain the phenomena and at the same time give
support to the theory as correct.

First off in very short version our Unified Field Theory is based on
LIGHT. (photons)

We will only look at this one phenomena and not get into gravity,
TIME, intrinsic spin, electromagnetics or all the others which it also
explains all from that one simple YGEM drawing of an electron made up
of paired photons including other particles as protons, neutrons and so
on.

This one experiment that has been performed and found to be a phenomena
has to do with reflection of Light. There is a strange phenomenon
dealing
with reflection of light called "partial reflection". The aspect that
physics can't explain about this test is not the percent of reflection
but why when using very dim light (photons) only the rate of counts
slow down and not the strength. The answer is said by Dr. Richard P.
Feynman in his book GED "The Strange Theory of Light and Matter" is
unknown. Remains a phenomena to physics. Those are his words and not
mine. If you use our Unified Field Theory based on Light you will see
why this is so and therefor gives validity to the Theory and possible
solution to the phenomena. According to our Theory the photons make up
the electron and therefore are only being exchanged between electrons.
What is detected by the final plate in the photomultiplier detector
is a complete electron and not a single photon which makes up the whole.
You will and should always get a complete electron click being of full
strength since it is the composite electron. It takes 918 paired photons
to make up one electron. When an electron gains energy (photons) it will
give up the extra photons and guess what?, Give off photons. Where have
we heard this before? We can go the other way to build the other
particles.
Compare the 918 photon pairs with the number 1836.12 electron mass of
the proton. Adding an electron to a proton through the process called
radioactive transformation gives you a neutron. All based on LIGHT.
Come on people, wake up out there. E=MC^2 is correct. Warren