View Full Version : Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics

05-20-2012, 06:56 AM
Tesla vs. Einstein: The Ether & the Birth of the New Physics


Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) was an electrical inventor, well known as a competitor of arch rival Tom Edison. Where Edison’s inventions include the light bulb, the microphone in the telephone and the phonograph, Tesla’s inventions include fluorescent lighting, the AC hydroelectric power system and wireless communication. Tesla is therefore mostly billed as an inventor.

The fact is, Tesla was also a physicist who studied in college such courses as analytic geometry, experimental physics and higher mathematics.1 In his early 1890s lectures at Columbia University, the Chicago World’s Fair and at Royal Societies in Paris and London, building on the ideas of Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin, Tesla demonstrated and discussed the structure of atoms as being similar to solar systems and wave-like and particle-like aspects to what later became known as the photon. Colleagues he lectured before and corresponded with included many Nobel Prize winners like Wilhelm Roentgen, J.J. Thompson, Lord Raleigh, Ernst Rutherford and Robert Millikan and other scientists such as Elmer Sperry, Sir William Crookes, Sir Oliver Lodge, Lord Kelvin, Heinreich Hertz and Hermann von Helmholtz.

As far as I know, no standard text on the history of physics mentions Tesla even though these ideas would lead to Nobel Prizes when they were further developed by Rutherford and Bohr (with their solar-system description of the atom with electrons orbiting the nucleus) and Einstein’s discovery of the photoelectric effect, which was equivalent to Tesla’s wave and particle-like description of light.

However, another idea which Tesla discussed was abandoned by modern physicists, and that was the concept of the all pervasive ether. This led to a number of key differences between Tesla’s view of the world as compared to that of Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Tesla disagreed with the findings of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a number of ways. As far back as the turn of the century, Tesla thought that he had intercepted cosmic rays emanating from the sun that attained velocities “vastly exceeding that of light.” In the last decade of his life he also claimed that these cosmic rays could be harnessed to generate electrical power. Tesla also saw radioactivity as evidence of the material body absorbing energy as much as it was giving it up.

On a separate front, the inventor stated that the impulses transmitted from his turn of the century Wardenclyffe wireless transmitting tower would also travel at velocities in excess of the speed of light. He likened the effect to the moon’s shadow spreading over the Earth.

It is very difficult to explicate the first two speculations concerning tachyonic (faster than lightspeed) cosmic rays and radioactivity. However, with regard to the third claim, this suggestion that he transmitted energy at speeds in excess of the speed of light can be discussed from a variety of points of view. As the Earth has a diameter of roughly 25,000 miles, and light travels at about 186,000 miles/second, one can see that it would take light approximately 1/7th of a second to circle the Earth. But does the Earth itself exist in its own realm, that by the nature of its size transcends the speed of light? For example, does the north pole, interact/exist with the south pole instantaneously? If so, in a sense the theory of relativity is violated as nothing, accordingly, can “travel” faster than the speed of light, yet the Earth’s very electromagnetic unity belies that theory.

Taking this concept a step further, does the solar system, or galaxy, when perceived as a functional unit, interact with itself in some way that by necessity makes a mockery of the speed of light? (The galaxy, of course, is hundreds of thousands of light years long.) In fact, when we look at photographs of galaxies, we are seeing entities that are hundreds of thousands of light years long. Certainly these systems have an orthorotational stability, and/or angular momentum which exists as a gestalt (totality) in a realm that easily transcends the speed of light and therefore, in that sense, violates relativity.2

Concrete proof that relativity can be violated can be found in George Gamow’s watershed book Thirty Years That Shook Physics. Gamow, one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, tells us that in the mid-1920’s, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck discovered not only that electrons were orthorotating, but also that they were spinning at 1.37 times the speed of light. Gamow makes it clear that this discovery did not violate anything in quantum physics, what it violated was Einstein’s principle that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. Paul Adrian Dirac studied the problem. Following in the footsteps of Herman Minkowski, who used an imaginary number i, (the square root of -1) to be equivalent to the time coordinate in space-time equations, Dirac assigned the same number i to electron spin. In this way he was able to combine relativity with quantum mechanics and won a Nobel Prize for the idea in the process (1966, pp. 120-121). That was the upside. The downside was that the finding that elementary particles spin faster than the speed of light as a matter of course went the way of the passenger pigeon. No physicist talks about this anymore. What this means is that the entire evolution of 20th and nascent 21st century physics is evolving ignoring this key Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck finding. The ramifications suggest that elementary particles, by their nature, interface dimensions. Because they are spinning faster than the speed of light, the idea is that they are drawing this energy from the ether, a pre-physical realm, and converting the energy into material form.

Continue to read:

Ian Moone
05-30-2012, 11:42 AM
This all pervasive "Ether problem" in relation to Einsteins special relativity e = mc^2 was well understood way back in the early 1970's when a young us physicist living in Australia one Stan Deyo published his book "The Cosmic Conspiracy".

The following lengthy quotation, setting out the speed of light performed my Mitchell Morley and later Mitchell Sagnac experimental error, and the erroneous assumptions this made which led to Einsteins work on relativity is from that book.

" “Einstein's Relativity Error
“The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'
In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Michelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light.
Their experiment (The Michelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.
The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.
Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).
The discipline details
Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.

The following discussion should illustrate this point.


Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)
And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):


c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer
S = distance GA = GB
T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)
T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)
T = .5 t T2
V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12


(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5


(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5


(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0


(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….
Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer
Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider
Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it
Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it
Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1


(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
which reduces to:
(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5
Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!

When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yields the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this author’s opinion!

The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.

Ether Existence Verified.

In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The Physical Foundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).


Diagram 3

The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun.

The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.

If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).
Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).
Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.
Solar Tea Cup
In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the volocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.
"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";

1. ) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,

2. ) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.

3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!

Few people even today realize that such a fundamental error exists in special relativity.

I would suggest that Tesla knew different!

Einsteins own professor Dr Hendrick Lorentze - (The Lorentze Transforms) knew that Einsteins special relativity theorem was bunkum and always referred to it as 'The Einstein Theory' in mock derision, because had he got to peer review his students avante garde paper - it would never have made it to publication...in the esteemed German peer review journal Alannerlyne De Physique!

In Fact Einsteins special relativity paper was NEVER peer reviewed!

To this day this is no proof that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and in truth mathematically there is ONLY one value for the speed of light that makes e=mc^2 valid and that is infinity.

You can read more on this on my posts in the What is TIME, and Other thread about Einsteins error both within this science section of this forum.

While I have already published this info now twice here people still post it just in a different format - as if it is somehow "new information".

It maters not whether its attributed to Tesla or anyone else - the fact remains Einstein was wrong and his paper was never peer reviewed.

He actually won his nobel prize for his peer reviewed paper of the photo electric effect.... yet he is remembered by history for "special relativity" which frankly is all bunkum that has led physics astray for the last 100 years!

Not that anyone cares.


Ian Moone
05-30-2012, 12:05 PM
For those having trouble with understanding the complexity of the physics described above in my post - here is a simple "laymans explanation" (from some of my former posts here) that might help simplify it.

"The speed of light cannot be infinite since it is quite simply measurable" (attributed to Eirie Engineer member)

The above statement (as usual with EE, zero supporting explanation or attempt at proof) suggests that Mitchellson Morleys LINEAR light speed experiment results, upon which Einstein built his proof for e=mc^2, were correct.

As the original poster of this thread so eloquently pointed out, the entire experimental design was flawed from the outset. (Note that my proof is mathematically correct also).

Clearly the intention with the MM linear light speed experiment was originally designed to determine the effect of any of the passage of light thru the ether of space was constant and whether the direction of spin of the earth had any effect upon the measured velocity of light in the vacuum of near earth space.

Experimentally sending one light beam in the direction of the earths spin and one against the direction of the earths spin, the exact same distance to an interferometer - should have proven or dis-proven this theory!.

The experimental design error was that after splitting the beam of light thru a 50% silvered angled mirror, to get two beams of light and sending one beam in a measured direction with the direction of spin of the earth and one against the direction of the spin of the earth to try and measure any effect of the earths rotation thru the ether of space, the experimenters Mitchellson Morely made the fatal design error, of then reversing the direction of travel of each of the two beams of light off 100% silvered mirrors directly BACK against the direction they were sent - effectively balancing out any increase in speed for the direction with the earths spin and conversely also balancing out the direction against the earths spin for each beam of light before them measuring their velocity over distance at the interferometer.

By doubling the light beam back on itself effectively reversing ts direction against or with the earths direction of spin - there was no observable difference in the measured velocity of the two light beams & the incorrect assumption was then made that there was no ether of space and that the speed of light must be constant and the measured velocity of 186,000 miles per second or 3 x 10^8 meters per second.

This error in turn lead to Einstens error with e = mc^2 where he ignores totally the negative root speed of light which when squared gives the same result as the positive root speed of light squared - because a negative squared yields a positive outcome.

In Essence what Einstens equation wrongly asserts is this:-

That a positive photon of light traveling East at 3 x 10^8 meters per second, can also at the exact same time - be a negative photon of light traveling West at the same 3 x 10^8 meters per second!.

This is a clearly paradoxical outcome (how can the same photon of light be traveling in tow opposite directions at the same time at the same speed? suggesting a false premise to start with!

In Einsteins E=MC^2 case the paradox was known as the twin paradox and even Einsten himself acknowledged his error before his death.

Suggesting that a single photon of light can perform that neat trick of traveling in two completely opposite directions, at the same time, is akin to suggesting that;-

If All dogs have 4 legs
All 4 legged animals are Cats
All dogs are cats
& all cats are dogs!

Clearly a paradoxical outcome (from starting with the false premise number 2 that "all 4 legged animals are cats") is the only possible outcome of cmmencing with a false premise and that's what Einsteins E=MC^2 by his own admission with "the twin paradox" (google it) proves!

Just as Mitchellson Morleys experiment was deficient in design to prove or disprove the existence of an ether.

There is only one possible velocity for the speed of light that would make e=MC^2 correct mathematically and that is infinity - because infinity squared is infinity.

Also if the velocity of light is infinite - then could not a single photon of light travel both East & West at the exact same time & speed - since if its velocity is infinite - then it can travel positive East or negative West (infinitely large or infinitely small) at the same time - because it is infinite after all!

Paradox solved.

There is only one possible speed/velocity for light and that is infinite.

Let me give you a 2 dimensional "similie" for you to be able to understand the above clearly and see the big picture here.

The Mm experiment was designed to ether prove or disprove the existence of space ether which it did not do due to the described experimental design flaw at the outset.

Assume for just a few moments that MM were wrong and there is a space ether.

Lets imagine that ether is the ocean that surrounds our planet.

Floating in that Ocean (ether) is a boat called appropriately enough "photon of light"

The boat called "photon of light" is making way in the ocean in a westerly direction at a velocity of 10 knots to make it easy! The velocity of vessel "photon of light" then is westerly at 10 knots!

Imagine now if you will.

The same vessel "photon of light" - traveling in a westerly direction at the velocity of 10 knots, encounters a strong tidall influence of the water in that ocean (Space ether) traveling EAST at a rate of 20 knots!

Here we have... a single "photon of light" (vessel), making way thru the ether (ocean) in a westerly direction, at the same time that the ocean water (ether) is traveling itself because of tide in a Easterly direction at 20 knots!

The net "speed over ground" of vessel "photon of light" is at the same time it is making way at 10 knots Westerly is actually minus 10 knots Easterly!

Thus a single vessel "photon of light" is traveling both West (positive) at 10 knots and also east (negative) at 10 knots AT THE EXACT SAME TIME!

Thus also - the speed of vessel "photon of light depends entirely what velocity the vessel has on due to her engine pushing her - plus (or minus) the velocity & direction due to tide of the ocean (ether) thru which the vessel "photon of light" is passing!

When the vessel..."photon of light" travels with the tide, it adds to its velocity and when it travels against the tide it subtracts from its velocity.

The vessel might always be capable flat out of say a theoretical still water velocity of 50 or 100 knots - but speed over ground will always vary with the tide of the ocean as to what its measured velocity over ground will be - dependent on the velocity of the tide and it's direction.

So it is with the speed of light and the ether of space!

Indeed this is what we observe with red phase shifting of light from distant galaxies - where currently scientists and physicists are at a loss to explain this red phase shifting of light from distant galaxies. Some have suggested that "the photons get tired after such along trip!"

The reality is that it depends what space ether currents the light wave encounters on its trips thru galaxies and past planets etc as to what wavelength it is phase shifted toward when it arrives - just as a ship in the ocean is affected by the forces of wind and tide as to the course and speed it attains and thus the duration of its journey from point A to point B.

Imagine if you will that, the ether of space is like say molasses, ad any planet that spins about its own axis as Earth does - drags along with it a "space blanket" if you will, of near earth space - that orbits along with the earth about its axis at the same rotational velocity but that the effect reduces the further away from earth you travel...

I find this a useful way to describe the phenomena of space ether and speed of light - most people can imagine a boat/ship in the ocean and the effect of tides and wind on a vessels course and speed thru the water and also over ground and this the infinitely variable duration of the journey.

So it is with photons of light in space.

Our experience with vessels in the ocean, should have been all Einstein and Mitchellson / Morley needed to know they were wrong with a constant speed of light, and e=MC^2

Its not so difficult when you think it thru to a logical conclusion really!.

The speed of light is thus truly infinite - both mathematically and logically!

It is the ONLY answer that actually works.

For all intents and purposes, the speed of light in near earth space, where the ether of space travels at a velocity approximating that of the earth in its spin about it's own axis and the same orbital velocity of the earth about the sun, the speed of light seems to approximate 186,000 miles per second, or 3 x 10^8 meters per second - making MM and Einsteins work "seem correct" in near earth space! Our experience with probes now traveling outside our solar system and phase shifted light from distant galaxies however seems to suggest that in the wider universe the speed of light is truly & definitely infinite and a function of the relativistic velocity of the space ether thru which it travels.!

Clear as mud to anyone with a logical brain! http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f53/images/smilies/wink.gif

P.s. EE, your claims would be far more believable, if you supported them with even a hint of logic.

PP.s - Far from a cut n paste job that was all my own work straight off the top of my head so no doubt some here with the attention span of a gnat will be seeking the cliff notes as they never learned to read or compose anything longer than a text message! http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f53/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Maybe that helps simplify it to the 2 dimensional "boat thru water" simile.


Ian Moone
06-13-2012, 10:53 AM
And this spam posting is why this forum is a waste of everyone's time!