Captain’s Log, Stardate 06
More Particles of Space
Particle Lambda-11
‘Gods of Science’ are missing the light
We see things because of light – but we do not understand light – we need to rethink what we see!
More Light Transmission/Propagation dynamics.
Diffraction, Polarisation – misnomers
Evidence staring us in the face.
___________________________
The evidence that science has become enslaved & prostituted by Finance Powers can be seen once again in UK Guardian Weekend magazine (Sept 11, 2010) in which Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough were front-page billed as ‘Gods of science’ – despite Guardian managing editor, Alan Rusbridger, being fully aware that the theories of these scientists have been disproved by CDADD.
Hawking reiterates his argument that the universe can be explained by physics (thus demonstrating the non-need of God) - but this is a false argument. It is false because inherent within the terms ‘physics’ (that Hawking relies upon) is the implied need for mathematics.
BUT, mathematics is an abstract concept – it is not REAL – mathematics can be distorted into an infinity of dimensions all of infinite size – hence, all of that which is REAL is a miniscule, dot-size, of (theoretically) infinite spaces all of infinite size.
Therefore (as implied within Hawking’s argument), if one cannot state a theory without quantifying it with a mathematical model then the theory is not valid; and, as a corollary, all pre-existing theories thus retain their validity. (Which therefore justifies continuing wasted spend on white-elephant projects such as Large Hadron Collider – despite sense saying that particles cannot travel at even one tenth of speed c).
We can easily get into an endless loop of theorising – we need to stop & think & observe & deduce from FIRST PRINCIPLES. And to do that we need to re-observe some basic secondary high-school & tertiary university experiments.
The point to bear in mind is that by maintaining defective theories we spin societies into decades of chaos.
Brian Cox’s connection to pop-band D:Ream, which created Labour Party’s 1997 election campaign song ‘Things Can Only Get Better’ is a good example of how defective thoughts & spin can distort. Tony Blair was corrupted from the outset, & before, the Labour Party’s 1997 election campaign – the Global Economy Meltdown is the proof of Labour’s defective models under his leadership; and Blair’s rapidly gained immense wealth since leaving PM office is the proof of the kickbacks flowing from his having been long corrupted. Blair’s wealth is the proceed from long established Organised Crime – economy chaos is the result.
(NOTE: CDADD continues to be oppressively & aggressively isolated by governments, universities, etc. – so there is no funding compared to the relatively immense facilities that Hawking, Dawkins, Cox & Attenborough have at their disposal. The executive of Ireland’s Royal Dublin Society, ‘sister’ to UK’s Royal Society have indicated their aggression quite plainly, Ireland’s government (Commons & Senate), which can also be considered as representative of ‘Organised Crime’, does not have the courage to engage in debate despite a senator (Feargal Quinn) extending, then reneging, such a promise.)
___________________________
In attempting to understand light & its means of propagation/transmission we face a similar problem as the brilliant one proposed by ‘Schrödinger’s cat’ problem (its there, its not there), which cat problem is philosophically brilliant despite it being incorrect, it being science-fiction. The problem with understanding light is more of ‘where does it come from’ & ‘how does it get to anyplace’. The problem is compounded when we recognise that if we intervene with any object to test a proposition concerning the dynamics of light & its transmission mechanism then that object defeats the purposes of, interferes with, the test such that we cannot rely on what we see by means of that test object. Hence we have to think things through – very, very carefully.
In previous papers in this series it was shown that the classical wave & particle theories pertaining to light transmission dynamics made no sense – because both wave & particle mechanisms would not account for the coherent light information that enables us to see, and for everything to function. Waves & particles zipping at speed c would cause chaotic, catastrophic, incoherent outcomes - clearly light propagation cannot be by waves & particles zipping at speed c.
Hence Edwin Hubble’s theory of red-shift Doppler effect implying that certain star’s were moving away from earth & up to speeds near to c, is incorrect. Also, Einstein’s energy theory (e equals mc squared) & relativity theory are also incorrect – because NOTHING travels at speeds anywhere nears to c, or even one tenth of c.
Also note: Einstein relied upon Hubble’s red-shift theory as proof of his theories – this clearly shows how piling defective theories upon other defective theories, no matter how brilliant they may be philosophised, results in massively skewed thinking (similar to David Cameron’s, Nick Clegg’ & George Osborne’s).
CDADD then propositioned a switching-mechanism between ‘particles’ that make up an ether, and that these particles are packed much like marbles in a jar, and that light switching between ‘particles’ propagated in a zig-zag fashion through the ether - hence actual speed of light is higher than speed c (of some 186,000 miles per second) (see Particle Eta-7)
Further, it was propositioned that everything existed & functioned as a consequence of this ether and that the transmission mechanism of the ether was essentially the Primary Motive Force (PMF) by which all things connect together & function & interact. And light is an observable phenomena that occurs as a consequence of this ether transmission mechanism, i.e. through this PMF.
However it was still unclear what proof existed of this proposed switching phenomena – other than reasoned thinking and the realisation that classical wave & particle theories made no sense because of incoherence & chaos being the only possibility of particles & waves buzzing at speed c.
How do we ‘mathematise’ the dynamic PMF processes that causes things to grow, to stop growing when reaching maturity, to decay, to die? We see that these things happen, daily. And we can use statistics mathematics to obtain demographic norms & variances, etc. BUT, we do not yet know how to mathematise that Primary Motive Force that determines how you grow, decay & die; nor what causes, for example, your 12 inch ruler to remain ‘static’ at 12 inches (thermal expansion ignored, but what PMF forces causes the ‘expansion’? how does it work?).
Presently, we look at things from the macro end & zoom in; as previously propositioned we need to start from the micro end and start to zoom out.
We need to rethink the basics.
It is contended that with the advent of lasers that certain proofs are more readily staring us in the face, which proofs nonetheless visibly existed before lasers were invented but the proofs not realised.
oOo
There are some important points we need to recognise if we are to develop clear understandings of light propagation (& energy & whatever else is needed to be propagated for the universe to function):-
- the mere fact that lasers are a concentrated beam of light, of intensity far greater than sunlight, with only a small amount of side-band effect is the very proof that light is not propagated in a wave fashion.
If light behaved as a wave then we would see a broad cone/band of diffused side-band light – but we don’t, we predominantly see a very narrow intense beam – hence light does not behave as a wave dynamic.
- diffraction, the phenomena observed through Young’s slit experiments, is a misnomer because the obstruction of the slit (or of any opaque object) in the path of the laser beam is not causing a ‘bending’ of light rays, the phenomena is caused by the zig-zagging effect of light switched between one particle to another within the ether (for want of a better descriptor: side-band effect).
- the observed pattern (side-band effect; classically termed as diffraction patterns) gives us further insights to the switching mechanism dynamics of light & energy through the ether. The fact that there are minima & maxima, slightly to the side of the main beam (that side which is partially obstructed by an object or screen) suggests that this is caused by ‘packets’ of ether particles interacting in co-ordinated clusters, which suggests is the cause of the ‘gaps’ between maxima & minima points. (Note: from observing movies we know that we need only 16 frames per second to achieve plausible image movement – a very low frequency)
- the observed (‘diffraction’) patterns on the screen is REFLECTED light of the main beam & the side-band light from off of the screen onto which it is projected – i.e. to achieve REFLECTED (reverse) light FORWARD propagated light undergoes a further transmission process (to achieve reflected light) and hence is NOT the same (no matter how similar) as the FORWARD transmitted light.
And since reflected light occurs because (it is contended) of electro-magnetic induction/transmission processes it means that the reflection (reverse) process ‘distorts’ the forward propagated light. Hence, we must be careful how we interpret reflected light (& refracted).
(WARNING: DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY INTO A LASER LIGHT, or any bright light, YOU WILL PERMANENTLY BLIND YOURSELF. Also it is not good to look too long at reflected laser light from even off a blackboard.)
- laser light is already ‘polarised’, so, by using a laser beam, we are already bringing in a distortion in attempting to understand the fundamentals of light transmission dynamics. This can be tested by a simple laser ‘pointing’ light & polaroid glasses. Simply shine the laser light through the polaroid glasses & rotate the laser light (or glasses) through 90 degrees – note the change in intensity of the projected laser light spot. This change in intensity is similar to shining the laser light through 2 pairs of ‘normally’ orientated polaroid glasses, then rotating the one pair relative to the other - i.e. the laser light unit must be constructed with a ‘polarised’ glass interposing. This was checked at McQuillan’s hardware store in Capel Street with another laser device, a 200m laser measuring unit – the same effect was observed. (also, see later)
oOo
There is a conundrum, pertaining to light, that needs to be undrummed.
If we consider a full solar eclipse we see a corona around the outline, and partly across the body, of the interposing moon – classically it has been argued that the light bends around the moon’s outer edges and causes the illuminance in front of the moon, and this because of light having a wave property. If that were true then a wave would cause the entire moon to appear bright, because of a wave continuing across the entire front of the moon, we being far distant as observers - but it doesn’t, the moon appears dark – hence, again, light cannot be behaving as a wave.
It is contended that the light that does appear from around the edges & in front of the eclipsing moon (classically termed: ‘diffracted’ light, but correctly: light from side-band effect) is NOT the side-band light that we observe on earth. What is happening is that the light that does appear from the edge of moon is propagated towards the observer, but at each & every point along that path the side-band effect is occurring.
This must be so otherwise we would not be seeing a beam of light when a searchlight, or laser, is pointed into the sky (we see a beam because of the side-band effect at all points along the beam’s path).
Therefore the corona we observe is that side-band effect immediately at our point of observation NOT that side-band effect occurring immediately in front of the moon, or at any points in between.
Think about this.
If we think further, it will become apparent that looking at far, far distant stars & with a body relatively near to that star & interposing between the star & observer on earth, then the dark shape of body will be less distinct because the side-band of light will be encroaching across more of its dark shape. And with even further stars the side-band effect will totally cover the shape & make it invisible (unless one now uses a telescope).
Again (& requiring thought), the side-band effect at your point of observation remains constant – even though the star light from a more distant star is dimmer, the side-band effect remains constant in size but nonetheless dimmer, it is the interposing body that is much smaller relative to the side-band effect (constant) immediately in front of you that causes the dark shape to be covered over by the side-band light & thus eventually making it invisible when the body size is less than the size of the side-band of light. Historically, scientists have previously thought of this phenomena as being caused by light rays ‘bending’ as it passes bodies – this is wrong.
The use of a telescope does not enlarge the side-band effect, it remains constant (for normal light; laser or other processed ‘artificial’ light may have different issues), a telescope simply enlarges the shape of the interposing body relative to the side-band of light & thus we can now see its dark shape.
Other forms of telescope such as radio would, it seems, have similar effects because the side-band is due to the zig-zag switching phenomena by which all forms of energy is transmitted/propagated. Are there response differences which have caused data misinterpretations of radio-telescopy observations?????????????
If we vector resolve the side-band light that we observe through Young’s slit experiment into forward & 90 degree side components, then we would (mathematically) obtain a small value of sideways light as would (should) be seen by an observer standing 90 degrees transposed to a beam of light.
However, ambient light floods this effect if the intensity of the light source is insufficient.
A laser beam is not a perfect point source – therefore one has to interpret & separate, from the side-band effect, the normal cone effect that occurs due to the laser device itself, even though it is slight, as opposed to, say, a cone shape from a regular torch or a searchlight beamed into the sky.
The intensity of a laser beam is far more intense than the exact corresponding source of point light (that causes a local point of light to an observer on earth) at the sun’s surface. Clearly this must be so, because light does not diminish, if it did then we would not see stars millions of light years away, so any point light that is directly around us is of the same intensity as that exact point source (which causes our local point of light) was when it left the sun’s surface; and also because we can see a laser light in bright sunlight.
Do not become confused with the intense heat energy at the sun’s surface – heat energy is NOT light intensity even though it requires the heat to produce the intensity of light emanating from the sun; the light has negligible energy in & of itself (simply consider the more intense laser light from a small battery on a commercial laser measuring/pointing device)
REITERATE: This conundrum is not like ‘Schrödinger’s cat’ problem (its there, its not there), but more of ‘where does it come from’ & ‘how does it get there’. The problem lies in recognising that if we intervene with any object to test a proposition then that object defeats the purposes of, interferes with, the test such that we cannot fully rely on what we see. Hence we have to think things through – very carefully.
We can see this kind of problem by observing light through a glass slide containing a ‘diffraction grid’ and comparing to that of light passing a partially interposing dark negative. The dark negative partially interposing a laser light produces a one-sided diffraction pattern, but a diffraction grid causes many nodal points to be ‘diffracted’. It is contended that theses multiple nodes are caused by a complexity of reflections & refractions between glass & grid slits – i.e. the interposing material of the diffraction grid defeats the purpose of the testings (to understand how light functions).
oOo
Polarisation is another misnomer as light is not polarised in the sense as classically portrayed.
We can observe with polaroid sunglasses that natural light has less ‘glare’; and, if we take two pairs of Polaroid sunglasses & hold them up, one behind the other & in the same orientation, that we can see through both glasses. However, if we turn one pair of glasses so that it is oriented perpendicularly to the other then we can see very little light coming through; and if we slowly rotate one pair through 90 degrees so that they are both once again in the same orientation then we can observe, progressively, as we rotate, increasing light coming through.
The classical explanation or this phenomena has been that light through one pair of glasses is polarised in one direction, but then passing through a second pair (oriented 90 degrees to the other causes) light to be polarised in the other plane, hence no light is able to pass through.
This classical explanation is erroneous.
What is happening, in simple terms, is that the Polaroid glasses, constructed such that it creates a diffraction grating of parallel lines, simply blocks out/reduces the side-bands of light, which is the cause of glare; and that the transposed second pair of glasses, held such the diffraction grating is 90 degrees to the other pair, now causes most of the light to be blocked (think of a horizontal grid in front of a vertical grid – we can see very little through both grids).
Observe these effects by using a single LED light shone through polaroid glasses and observe the reduction in glare around the fainter, extremity, of the beam of light projected through the glasses onto a screen; then move the glasses away and observe the re-emergence of the increased glare in the extremities of the light beam.
The light passing through one pair of glasses is NOT polarised, it is merely ‘de-glared’ by blocking out the side-band of light that is caused by the zig-zag switching mechanism of light propagation.
Then repeat with 2 pairs of glasses & rotate one relative to other.
The term ‘polarising’ came about, it appears, from the production process of making polaroid sunglasses, by Polaroid company, which required the ‘active’ material within the sunglasses to be polarised to cause a uniform, polar, parallel, striation of particles such that it created in effect a parallel ‘diffraction’ grid within the glass. This caused light to be incorrectly viewed as having polar characteristics, as classically (but wrongly) attributed.
oOo
Further thoughts about light transmission/PMF dynamics will bring realisation that pollution is not the main contributor to Global Warming!
________________________
The misinterpretations canvassed within this series of papers concern tangible physics which have brought about decades of science-fiction distortions. These sci-fi distortions remain deeply entrenched; leading scientists at Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, NASA, ESA refuse to shift from their ‘flat earth’ viewpoints concerning these sci-fi distortions to which they have long held & promoted; & Guardian’s Weekend article proves that leading scientists refuse to constructively engage with those who disprove their defective science theories.
Honesty is absent.
The misinterpretations within the intangible sciences (social, economy, business, finance, legal) have caused centuries of economic hardships, wars, starvations etc. – yet Pres Obama in his late August 2010 media statement concerning the US economy still refuses to engage honestly & transparently with those bringing pioneered engineering insights to both the tangible & intangible sciences. It is clear that Obama is not turning around the USA economy, it continues to slide because of:- the grossly over-saturated money & money supply, the destructive economy interest rate control that Ben Bernanke is mishandling (just as is UK’s Mervyn King), & various other factors.
Ditto UK’s coalition government. And Euroland.
The IPCC also continues its dishonest culture despite a review panel, which is headed up by Princeton economist Harold Shapiro.
And Tony Blair continued with his dishonesty when tamely interviewed by Andrew Marr (on BBC) concerning his recent book launch.
UK’s new coalition government are bringing ‘new’ reforms. It is dead easy to bring about change, societies are well experienced in implementing change – the problem lies within the models which they are implementing – the models are grossly defective & massively destructive – BECAUSE engineering is absent from the intangible sciences, just as they are absent from the tangible sciences.
UK’s coalition government do not act in the interests of the electorate because the government is controlled by corrupt Finance Powers.
Not one scientist has had the courage to take up CDADD’s Open Global Challenge.
Nothing changes – dishonesty will continue the downward slide of western economies – anger is increasing both internally & externally to developed nations – hot global war is becoming increasingly likely, from within & without.
__________________________________
As with all submissions by CDADD they are open to sincere challenge – and challenges are openly welcomed - to date most ‘scientists’ that have responded have engaged by insults & oppositional denigration, such approach is destructive & unprofessional – a small few scientists (intangible scientists it is pointed out) have raised initial scepticism with at most a touch of sarcasm but their responses to continued debate have been polite & reasoned = professional. Other scientists should take note.
BBC has screened a new science programme series ‘Wonders of the Solar System’ presented by Manchester University’s Professor Brian Cox – there are some fundamental errors in Brian Cox’s interpretations of what we see & feel around us, & into deep space – we will discuss these errors shortly.
BBC also fund defective science but reject pioneered engineering that disproves longstanding (defective) science theories.
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
www.cdadd.com, (currently unlawfully & abusively gagged/censored by SA ISP Diamatrix.co.za & USA ISP Softlayer.com)
(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic world’s.)
XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.
##### End of Particle Lambda-11 #####