The relative velocity of photon and moving frame:SR heresy.

Obviously the author did not understand the derivation of the Lorentz transformation, which was defined to be a coordinate transformation for all mechanical motion, with the constraint that for light, the speed of light should be the same.

Neither here, the author do not understand the meaning of relative velocity.
What he does here is just substracting two velocities in order to get a result which is larger than c. However this result is not a relative velocity, since it is the substarction of two velocities in the same reference frame.

Obviously, he didn't understand the meaning of the invariance of the speed of light, since he thinks that in different media, the velocity of light should be constant, which is of course wrong. The effect of light draging in water is well explained by SR, in different media, particle can of course go faster than light (in the medium) and produce Cerenkov radiation.

My conclusion: Another crackpot.

see equations (2-5) and (2-6).

If the particle goes at velocity V, and you replace x by Vt in order to get t' = t &sqr;1-v^2/c^2), use it for the other equation to get x' =0 and from here V' = 0.
You cannot use a specific equation of motion in one of the equations and leave the other part as a general equation, unless you are a crackpot.

I won't bother waste my time with this one


Hmmmm. :bugeye:[/QUOTE]
Yes, MacM you are right: Hmmmm. :bugeye:
Just a question

Why do you all the time give links to crackpots?
I guess that it is to show us that SR is correct and to entertain us with crackpots.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. I am not advocating a particular answer but the fact that inspite of a majority vote that seems to agree with you, there are many (including highly trained physicists) that disagree with all of this. One of the above at least is such a physicists.

I find the absoluteness of your (and others) responses to be inappropriate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well thank you Crisp. I'll note that my physical attributes are not from wearing a dunce cap.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. He seems to know what has been done but disagrees with doing it in that manner.

Actually he seems to be saying "If you space two photon detectors 1.0 lyr apart and in the middle place a prisim and deliver a light pulse into the prisim that light traverses the gap in 6 months. That is the only conclusion (inspite of the Velocity Addition arguement) that is consistant with observation is that the relative velocity between the bifurcated photon beam ends must be 2c to accomplish that feat. From an observers point of view at either end of the beam one could argue the VAF view but pragmaticly from a universal view, the d/t conclusion is FTL.

Actually I think he suggests that the vacuum of space is also a medium with a refraction index (different than water of course) and that space should be treated as a medium (ether).

It also happens to concur with my own view that the production of standard light is an identical process as Cerenkov Radiation where "Something" is traversing space at FTL for the medium. If you then understand that the position or velocity of Cerenkov Radiation will vary along a flowing stream of water by c+v and c-v as a function of beam vector and fluid flow you would understand that the invariance of light (which it is) does not mean what is claimed and the basis for Relativity may be flawed.

Indeed the observation of the production of a photon (with v = c) being produced in the process of an electron tunneling (FTL) the spatial gap between orbits in an atom seems to mandate such a view of the origin of light and the basis of 'c' invariance. "Light" is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation as something collapses dimension due to Lorentz Contraction - i.e. the view of the Star Trek flash when the Enterprize achieves warp speed. Hehe.

Yes since he disagrees with you (and Relativity) he must be a "Crackpot".

http://www.chavarga.iatp.org.ua/page3.html

 

Then please show me where, in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation, is it assumed that it is valid only for light?

No, he is suggesting that:Let a light pulse of short duration be sent to a mirror formed by two adjoining sides of a cube. The mirror of that shape divides the light pulse into two parts and two light pulses are created. In this way they are directed in two opposite directions. In one second each of these two pulses will travel 300000 km. Bearing in mind that they move in opposite directions the distance between them will be 600000 km. From this it certainly follows that they went away from each other at the speed of 600000 km/s, i.e. their relative speed was 600000 km/s. In other words, the sum of their speeds was 600000 km/s, and not 300000 km/s as Einstein claims in his equation for addition of speeds.
All he is doing is in only one reference frame, hence this is not the relative velocity.

No, what he suggests is:
How would the Lorentz and other transformations, as well as other equations for the addition and subtraction of speeds look in the case of some other environment?

.......

Thus, if one respects all the conditions for which the transformation of coordinates was derived, then the sum and the difference of the speeds according to Einstein's Eq. (B), should be equal to the speed of light in that environment, for which the coordinate transformation had been derived. Everything else is wrong, or a dexterous thought trick.

I have allways thought that light is produced by the acceleration of electric charge. And that Maxwell's equations are correct.
Show me how a charge that is oscillating at speed muchs maller than c can produce light as a Cerenkov radiation.

There is no tunneling when an electron change orbit in an atom.
MacM, you don't know QM, and you don't know electromagnetism. So please, don't tell us that SR is maybe flawed by your interpretation of QM and EM.

No he is a crackpot since he wants to show flaws of SR by showing poor understanding of SR.

So?

 

Show me where that has any bearing on this discussion.

Show me where what you just said is any different that what I said.

I do believe "Some other enviornment includes a medium with a different refraction index, i.e. - an ether." SAurely you didn't miss his work as being stated for "Ether Solitrons"?

Be more specific on your production of light by an oscillating <c charge. I have been talking about motion of a source or motion of an observer relative to a source.

You can't side step the issue this easy. If you choose to not refer to it as tunneling, thats fine. But this isssue predates QM by decades and electrons vanish from one orbit and instantly appear in another lower energy orbit accompanied by the production and release of a photon of energy.

Unfortunately you can attack my credentials easily; however, unless you are also a "Dr of Mathematics and a Dr of Physics" with his credentials and years of experience, I choose to consider that perhaps it is you that fail (or refuse) to acknowledge that perhaps, just perhaps, he knows more than you and has a better understanding than you.
Referring to anyone that disagrees with Relativity a "Crackpot" is hardly a scientific rebuttal. It is a "Crackpot" response.

“ Originally Posted by MacM

http://www.chavarga.iatp.org.ua/page3.html ”

So post your credentials, experience and achievements so that we may compare them to his and decide who we should believe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The purpose of my post was to show that he and many others find that they can get comperable answers to Relativity. Nothing here opposses observaton or test data but only the method of calculating the result.

Relativity claims an ether is not necessary. Ether claims Relativity is not necessary. Relativity is devoid physical cause and is merely mathematical. The mathematics produce the same result but has a physical cause.

Which is actually the better view? You'll say Relativity. I say many alternatives. There is simply no basis to advocate Relativity exclusive of other equally valid explanations. The fact that there is so much data supporting Relativity really is a non-issue since the same data conforms to ether concepts as well. If it produces no different result then it should have no priority claim to validity.

Here is my point:

http://www.livinguniverseweb.com/precesio.htm

Multiple calculations which produce the same 43 arc-secs deviation for Mercury's orbit other than the one presented by AE.

 

Well if you were unwilling to click on the link provided for his resume, then why should I bother listing all the others I have also read? There are several BTW.

http://www.chavarga.iatp.org.ua/page3.html

Let me suggest it is more appropriate that you address the issue of him being a "Crackpot - Dr of Mathematics and Dr of Physics" and the information he puts forth rather than divert the issue to how many others I could locate and list.

 

For someone claiming to be a "Doctor of Physics and Mathematics" this Chavarga fella is either the least prolific mathematician alive or just very good at hiding. He doesn't seem to exist under any of the mathematics search engines I've tried (I even tried ArXiv as a last grasp). Does he have any physics articles in proper refereed journals?

I particularily like how he lists his "Referees" for his book as both being from Uzhgorod, as he is. I guess we can trust them to be impartial

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Fair point.

 

Sarcassim accepted but bite on this:

http://rotse1.physics.lsa.umich.edu/information/members.html

I just happen to be in contact with some members of this group and as we speak am receiving e-mails regarding UniKEF Gravity. So I hope these fellows meet your approval.

PS: And no it is not some of the El Paso Members.

 

Quote from the article (you can find this in the first quote that I gave in this thread): Therefore, this transformation could not be derived, at all, by using equation of mechanical motion, and have nothing in common with mechanical motion.

Here:
Quote by you:

You and him are talking about a relative velocity of 2c (you said 2c, he said 600000 km/sec). Relative to whom? Relative to the mirror that split the pulse, each one has a velocity of c. Each one relative to each other has a velocity of c (he even shows it). The addition tht gives 2c has no meaning.

Again, in his paper, he writes:
x_w = c_wt and x'_w = c_wt'.
Assuming that the speed of light in water is invariant. This is wrong.

It was you that :

Cerenkov radiation is when your source goes faster than light in the medium.
Light is emitted by accelerating charges that are slower than the speed of light.

Thank you for giving your definition of tunneling, but I told you once, when you don't know something, don't give that something as a reference for your claims.
Tunneling is when you have a particle that is in an energy state and there is a potential barier that is higher than the total energy of the particle. Classicaly, that particle has not enough energy to go through this barier. But it still can go through this barier. This is called tunneling. Take any book on quantum mechanics and read the chapter on a square barier.

The author of the paper we are talking about is:
Milan R. Pavlovic was born in 1931 at the village of Krusevica in Yugoslavia.
He graduated from the Electro-technical Faculty of Belgrade University. He spent his working life in the research, development and testing of military equipment in the fields of telecommunications, electrooptic tank and artillery fire control systems, laser and nuclear engineering.

I have only a PhD in Physics from Tel-Aviv University with the subjects of my research that were topics in a manifestly covariant relativistic quantum theory.

But of course when you do research, development and testing of military equipment, it gives you higher qualifications than if you do research on relativistic quantum theories.

I still say that when you don't know relativity and use false claims to prove relativity is wrong makes a crackpot of you.

I have allready said this to you: Since you don;t understand relativity, you are not in a position to say if it is valid or not.

 

I would not attempt to debate the correctness or lack of it. I simply took note that he claims to be a Dr of Mathematics and Physics.

So you fail to see the signifigance that light fills the gap between the mirrors 1 lyr apart in only 6 months and can't see that requires a true physical property of 2c from the perspective of the operator of the laser. Going to the left at c and going to the right at c, he percieves a 2c relationship between the ends. I HAVE ALREADY SAID VIEWED BY AN OBSERVER TRAVELING AT EITHER END YOU WOULD USE VELOCITY ADDITION TO DERIVE RELATIVE VELOCITY IN THAT VIEW.

If I am setting on a box of TNT wired to go off by photo detectors if the 1 lyr void between mirrors isn't traversed in 6 months, I think I would damn well hope that the ends of the beams have a 2c relationship to the universal dimensional reality of the setup.

Are you claiming that light invariance only exists in a vacuum? Surely not.

You seemed to have missed the importance of the term "form" in the text of my post. I did not propose it was Cerenkov Radiation but simular in its basis regarding a source going FTL in a medium, not that it was caused by a moving charge.

What is it you think I don't know? Perhaps you have a better term you would like to associated with the function.

I know what tunneling is. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how the electron orbital transition across the "energy barrier" of atoms is any different than other forms of tunneling such as an electron traversing a potential barrier in a substrate without actually passing through it.

Perhaps you would prefer "teleportation" over "tunnneling". :bugeye:

Your qualifications seem adequate. It is unfortunate however, that you appear to have a limited capacity to function outside the realm of Relativity.

Nothing personal but I really don't give a damn what you want to lable me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since you don't understand UniKEF you are not in a position to say if it is valid or not. When are you going to realize that what you say I do or do not understand has absolutely no relation to anything? I understand plenty but I reject most of it. There is a difference.

 

First James R your questions aren't the least bit involved with physics. 1. I am not attacking SR You are defending it so quit setting me up as if I have to prove something to you, in your terms and rules. NO, James R we are playing by my rules. Do you understand? I am the one changing you, not the other way around.

1. When the postulates of SR are followed, the results are consistent with SR theory, but there are differences with physical truth. Mathematical results of SR are erroneous to the extent they described non-existing physical activity, such as the results in Einstein’s description of, and justification of, the loss of simultaneity. 2. No it isn't the complexity that drives me away from accepting SR as truth, or as an accurate and rational description of nature. Short comings of Special Relativity that are dogmatically believed and supported:

1. Simultaneity. When using AE's description and arguments which extend beyond "Relativity". Loss of simultaneity is arbitrarily accepted by virtue of the location of a single observer on a moving frame, here O' that observer that was at the midpoint M when the photons were emitted. As O' moved with respect to the M observed position, O' detected the photons sequentially, end of story.
2. Passengers at M [/B] when the photon arrived there simultaneously, are ignored.
3. Observers timing the emission of the photons from the moving frame (at A and B), when the photons were emitted, are ignored.
4. O' had available data from at least three unambiguous sources that would have proved the photons were emitted into the moving frame, simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame. That isn't physics.
5. Not the slightest attempt or even a question by O'

   Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

   "If I am moving from A to B then if I was at M when the photons were emitted I would naturally see the photons arriving sequentially. Data analysis determines the matter"

No such expression. Therefore, simultaneity is a contrived mathematical nuisance.

1. The gedanken is ambiguous as knowledge by the passengers regarding their motion is not specifically integrated, acknlowledged or used..
2. Time Dilation
3. Frame Contraction
4. Loss of Absolute Time, all based on what?
5. The perception of one Person in the moving frame.

This isn’t physics.​

Your conclusions of what I have done are informationally erroneous, but your opinions are your own.. Any velocity additions I have done were in the context of determining the relative velocity of photon and frame. If you concluded differently, then you are in error with your conclusions. Your use of the word “believe” is presumptive. You speak as if the choice were down to two options, actually its three options, two of yours, and one of mine: a .ours(2) vs. b. mine. again presumptive, but in this case, with correction added, accurate.. Your use of the word Newtonian is ambiguous and presumptive.

BS James R, this your contribution to this thread and this post so far.
[JR contributions = 0].

The constancy of the speed of alight is unquestioned, at least to the significance of these posts. However, when we measure the relative velocity of ducks wrt to a stationary frame and then measure the relative velocity of that same duck wrt to a moving frame, the relative velocities are different though the absolute velocity wrt a zero velocity frame is measured to an acceptable degree of accuracy. SR treats light differently in such a manner that rational analysis and discussion is extremely difficult as the concept is so deeply embedded in the minds of SR theorists. I see it a perfectly acceptable physical act to determine the relative velocity of a light beam with respect to a moving frame. SR tells us we must adjust our thinking and accept the rule that the measure of light will be measured with respect to all frames as the speed of light C. Don't tell me I don't understand this because I do, I also say I understand that there is no physical reason to so treat light. When I am moving in a direction wrt to a preferred frame and shine a light in the direction of my travel, I have a simple experimental device to determine my velocity wrt the speed of light. My motion does not add velocity to light such that V + C = C' where C' > C, no. But C - V = C - 50mph, is not a dirty word expression that corrupts the meaning of physical law. .When I am on a moving frame and I have measured my velocity wrt a preferred frame and I detect a light fleeting past, it is a trivial matter to determine the relative velocity of my frame and the photon. I simply take C - V = Vrel. I know what the measured value of C is wrt a preferred frame, so I don't have to measure it. How does SR always measure C wrt a moving frame? with : time dilation, frame contraction, and considering the moving frame as V = 0. I gave up trying to talk reason with any SFR theorist, they don’t listen. They tell us they have education and experience, it is us who are ignorant. You should take a close look at how you sound some times.​

No you are incorrect. The physicists that accepted SR did so for professional reasons, to the extent any alternative wasn’t scrutinized. If alternatives were discovered in the professional context, well even if true they would be ignored it as such was contradictory to the ‘professional prevailing view’. .

James R, I don't give a hoot that some physicists dig it, like it, honor and obey it, I think SR is trash. So I am easy to exclude, which will be beneficial to us both, keeping out of each other’s way. So don't be condescending with me please. I am not coming over to your side of the river, It isn't going to happen. And if the idiots you describe wish to exclude me then so be it.​

[contribution = -2.25]
This is so much historical bullshit James R. Who are you writing your posts to? The public, the future scrutinizer of forum data banks? Physicists used Ptolemy's model for nearly 1700 years, Why aren't you pushing for the return of Ptolemy?​

[contribution = -2.54]
Let me tell you how it is going to be with me James R and if you don't like it then leave me alone. I am going to explore this matter and I am not going to stop because of your admonitions. Do you understand this? I will develop my own goddamn mathematics when I feel it necessary, but keep your personal guidance to yourself, please. It is annoying. If you want to give me specific advice on the physics good enough, I will listen, but quit trying to get me to join your church, it isn't going to happen, do you understand that? If you think that reality is a mere choice between Galilean and Lorentzian frames that is your right., but I feel embarrassed for you because you aren't privy to all that I have to consider and to analyze. Do you really consider yourself superior to us mortals because of your SR expertise? It sure seems like it.

Where do you people come from?​

[contribution = -5.0- max negative reached]
You can tell me what I have to do until you choke James R, to tell you the truth I am not going about this matter in some kind of predictable lock step method that you used. Don’t tell me what I have to say about the matter, and what I must prove and disprove. I have already proved it to myself. You haven't the knowledge I seek that I would listen to your every word. So if I give up reality, because SR is in the final analysis true, then so be it. I shall not cry one little tear. I am not here to save the world and to convert SR theorists to a rational lifestyle. I don’t give a good goddamn about your collective insanity, it is only that you preach your garbage to the world that I object to, You SR morons just happen to be a group of nasty people that have to be exposed.​

When I assume that earth is an inertial frame with velocity equal to zero and I solve a problem with that assumption, then it would be up to someone else to disprove the matter. Whatever the relative velocity of earth and Hercules, the problem I will be working are impervious to that relative velocity.

Read Miller. you will understand. In any event whatever the posted velocity speculations are, the error 5x10^-12mrads/sec^2 combined error is effectively 0 where I come from (government work) and I am going to treat the planet so. Did you know that the error rate of the velocity vector changes from a constant number? On the order of 10^-8 radians/second. There are an awful lot of experiments that can be conducted and satisfied with that particular 0, do you not agree? What kind of photon measurement that you might perform that would be damaged by the error rate of 10^-8 rad/sec as a distance measure from absolute? Did you know the combined error term (10^-12 meter radians/sec^2) is a force term? A near zero force term? That is interesting in itself don't you agree? No you don’t and no it isn’t interesting to you. Right? JR.
And what makes you think Hercules isn't what I said? If I am wrong abou Hercules how can that help you discredit me because I use zero for the velocity of earth, absolute 0.

I have a method of determining absolute zero with respect to that zero from which the speed of light is referenced. Do you have an equivalent absolute zero velocity determiner? I know you don’t have one because you’ve never thought one possible, from your professional and educational background, you were prohibited, and you being also obedient, you kept your mind off the subject. Well, except when someine brings the subject up, then you go into our attack mode rage and attempt to savage the concept and the conceptor, don’t you JR?​

Well doubt away, because I disagree with you, but so what? Who made the estimate?. What were the physical conditions and parameters assumed. What are the data used? Was SR theory used, in any manner? What are the data discarded? Was dark matter considered? Were black holes considered? Was Dayton Miller analysis and experimental results considered? Did you personally verify any calculations? How do you know the earth is not at the geometric and physical mass center of the universe? Prove it old man.

I have it on a very good source, the best actually, that the earth is at that center of it all.. Think of the odds against that happening.​

I asked you a question. Do you know the answer or are you jitterbugging out of answering? You give me the "wrt" it was your statement? about your galaxy. Why the hell did you bring it up?
"
​

B

You have never ever said I was correct about anything. So what? What the hell am I wrong about? What the hell is so special about some idiots pretending themselves as scientists, who are also, very dead at this instant in our history? I told you many time the earth is not a zero velocity platform. It is a platform with an error from zero at 5 x 10^-12 mrad/Sec^2.

Now how many times must I say to you that it is close enough for me and I am going to use it if I am the only person in the world using it, It is close enough for me for my purposes. When I need a finer resolution, I will find that resolution and employ it. This is how it is really done JR.​

You understand, You are not confused,​

,

How many time do I have to mention the combined error expression? Are you just jacking me around trying to keep me busy answering dumb posts?,​

 

The author of the first paper that you gave and from which we are making the discussion doesn't claim this

In the reference frame of the operator, each has a velocity of c.
in the reference frame of each photon, the other has a velocity of c.
Who has a velocity of 2c? And wrt whom?

The velocity of light in vacuum is invariant.
If you take a beam of light and put it in water for example, it will have a velocity of c/n. If you now move wrt the water, the beam of light will not have this speed anymore wrt you.

Cerenkove radiation is when the source of light has a faster velocity than light in the medium where the source moves.
Then explain what do you mean when you say that

And please explain me how do you create light or em without accelerating charges.

I told you, take an introductory book on quantum mechanics and read about tunneling. By saying that transition between bound states is equivalent to tunneling shows that you don't know what is tunneling.

No, tunneling is tunneling, transition between bound states is something completely different.

I agree, I will also add that nobody is in a position to say if it is valid or not, since there is nothing to test. You gave just a few pages of calculus with no explanations of anything.

You know, from my teaching experience, I can tell you that when a student ask a question, you can know if he doesn't understand anything.

 

by geistkiesel:


"I have it on a very good source, the best actually, that the earth is at that center of it all.. Think of the odds against that happening."
==============================================================

I have came across the same information, some newly published data from the Sloan
Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The effort is led by Max Tegmark of the Univ. of Pennsylvania and involves more than 200 astronomers at 13 institutuons. The data
shows that our galaxy is centered in a great concentric distribution of galaxies and
that it is apparent that there is a decrease in galaxy density with increasing distance
from the Earth. Of course, the data is controversial because it seems to violate the
Cosmological Principal in which the universe is assumed to be homogeneous with no
favored center. I do not have an on-line link I can give, I referenced it from a Tech.
Journal.
================================================================

by 1100f:

"The velocity of light in vacuum is invariant.
If you take a beam of light and put it in water for example, it will have a velocity of c/n. If you now move wrt the water, the beam of light will not have this speed anymore wrt you."
===============================================================

So, the speed of light is not invariant in a medium. Is this why the SR supporters
fight an aether or any kind of 'substance' in the vacuum that light might propogate
through? Seems clear enough to me.

 

2Inquisitive,

Ah, but a point seems to have been missed. It remains invariant to the water. Now consider the water a moving observer in a vacuum relative to the same light source.

 

Interesting. I post (3) links and state one has represented that he is a Dr of Mathematics and Dr of Physics (Assuming meaning a Doctorite). Now you come back and claim I have miss represented since the first link doesn't claim that. Is this just a mistake on your part or are you deliberately creating fraudulant assertions?

Valid statement but you don't seem to understand the simplest of concepts. Although the observer sees each end moving at c, they are moving in opposite directions hence the observer sees the ends as having a 2c relative velocity which is why they fill the 1 lyr gap in 6 months.

We all know that.

We all know that. If you look at my posts (and the information discussed in the links posted you'll find a discussion about refractive index and c/n.

My comment was to compare the invariance of light in water (or any medium) under like conditions of the invariance of light in a vacuum. That is you as an observer moving adjacent to the light beam in water will see the beam as invariant.

Certainly if you now flow the water the velocity shifts c+v or c-v.

Now just suppose you could cause the vacuum (the c/n medium) to flow? Hmmmmm.

Or suppose you are the water as an observer. Hmmmm.

You seem to be building my case for me. Thanks.

Look damnit I had nuclear engineering. I have personally handled new and used fuel and lowered tools into the reactor core under 30 feet of ultra pure-water and have photos of me dressed out with Cerenkov Radiation glowing brightly in the background. Don't try to talk down to me. Have you ever had any hands on experience or are you just a smug book nerd?

1 - Being in the "form" of a phenomena of something moving FTL through a medium. In this case it would be UniKEF through the vacuum. (realizing that the vacuum isn't actually a void).

2 - I don't actually have the foggiest idea how the light is generated. That isn't my job it should be yours but since you and others seem destined to not even look ,then it is up to those of us with something beside a tape recorder between our ears to figure out.

I at least can envision the consequences of such a thing. The consequence is that Relativity is based on an illusion. A lack of understanding of what light is and how it is created and propagates.

Now tell me I am wrong that you actually know all these things.

You know its observed properties but you don't know much else. So you are no better off than I. In fact I would have to suggest that perhpas it is I that may know more than you because I have looked beyond what you have downloaded into your recorder from books.

My speculation has been that UniKEF is a phase higher than standard energy.

i.e. - mass, energy, UniKEF. Where energy is mc^2, UniKEF = energy*c^2. Who knows? I don't but I know many things that such a concept can answer.

i.e. The illusion of light invariance, particle entanglement, virtually instaneous gravity, etc. And guess what. In that view the universe just chugs along and doesn't miss a beat in absence of Relativity. Observations are the same. So why should I, or anyone for that matter prefer the limitations imposed by Relativity.?

Seems you choose to not answer the question. What do you want to call orbit jumping by an electron? You can give it different names but the feat is quite simular. Traversing a domain where it can't and doesn't actually traverse it but basically teleports it.

I don't know your age but I get the impression that I was knee deep in radioactive spent fuel and dealing with tunneling while you were knee deep in diaper rash.

Symantics.

Funny. It has already been tested.

Funny. Now tell the truth. Have your read the material at the UniKEF Gravity site? I thought not.

You know from my R&D experience and raising money from investors over the years, I can tell when people talk BS to try and impress others that they know more than they do.

 

Maybe I didn't state it too clearly, but this is what I was getting at: Light is invariant
in each particular medium, but is NOT invariant to an observer moving through that
same medium. Is this not what 1100f stated? After all, Cerenkov radiation would not be
possible if the speed of light could not be exceeded by a particle moving through the
same medium. If the vacuum contained a medium for light to propogate through, then
light would not be invariant to an observer moving through the vacuum, it would be
invariant to only the vacuum itself, which is what I have been arguing all along. I know
the relativists do not agree that there is a medium in the vacuum for light to propogate
through, as it would invalidate SR.