“C” Stands For Crap
Astronomy provided evidence and philosophy tried to explain the why and how those observations occurred.
Just a few stars with strange behavior were able to move the Earth from of the center of the solar system and the universe to a minor peripheral position.
In physics it is not enough to describe evidence but there is a need to explain that evidence.
Kepler used the data from Tycho Brahe’s observations on the position of the planets to formulate his laws and in turn, Newton used Kepler’s laws to develop his laws of gravity to explain the why and how for the behavior of the planets.
Kepler created aN explanation of what was happening and Newton created an explanation of why it was happening. Kepler’s law are confirmed by observations but Newton’s explanation of why has been shown to be wrong by the observations of binary asteroids.
Because the force of gravity had such peculiar properties that were unlike any other forces, its uniqueness raised questions on whether Newton’s Law of Gravity really was the why or just an answer to fit the observation.
Even before the discovery of binary asteroids Einstein did not accept Newton’s Law of Gravity because it acted instantaneously and he believed that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. He developed General Relativity as the why for planetary movement but his answer contradicts observations and reason.
If you get closer to a center of gravity the distance to it does not increase.
Observations require assumptions of the nature of light and these assumptions effect our interpretation of what we see. Newton made the assumption that light travels in a straight line but it doesn’t. A mirage is an image of something that is not there.
Heat from a hot surface cause an image of distortion waves to appear above the surface as the air molecules above distort the path of the light. Objects change the path of light so the path of light does not travel in a straight line, but we define a straight line as the path of the light.
Einstein made erroneous assumptions about the nature of light that make his theories wrong. The first was the creation of the photon where light was both a particle and a wave.
This was his answer or attempt at why for the observation of the photoelectric effect. When certain wavelengths of light strike certain metals or crystals it produces a current. If light were a wave it would take time for enough energy to be transferred to the atoms to create a current and no such delay was observed.
If, on the other hand, light were a particle it would then not produce the interference patterns seen as it passes through two closely spaced apertures. This solution to the discrepancy defies reason and is wrong since particles and waves have completely different properties and the current can be explained by the nature of the materials producing it.
In metals and crystals electrons are separated from atoms and held in position by electric bonds. Any distortion of these bonds, whether from external pressure (piezoelectric effect) or light of the right wavelength (photoelectric effect) will cause these electrons to flow.
The second erroneous assumption is that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and is the basic reference frame for every other measurement (time, distance, and mass).
The evidence he used to support his theory, that light emitted by a moving object will not travel faster than the light emitted by a stationary source can be simply explained by the behavior of waves whose speed is determined by the medium in which they travel.
Since observations are done from two points, source and receptor, any assumption that the speed is constant or that the light traveled in a straight line is just that, an assumption. If you travel from point A to point B in a certain time it does not mean you took a straight path or that you went at a constant speed.
Kepler’s law for planetary motion, dVp^2 = C, states that the energy (v^2) from a source decrease as a function of the distance from the source. This is based on evidence and not an explanation of evidence.
If the velocity of light is constant in a vacuum then the energy of that light will not change as it travels through that vacuum.
The energy of light coming from distant stars is not the same as the energy coming from the sun. “c” stands for crap.
Header image: Vector Stock
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
How did this article slip to the second page without comments? Where are the rebuttals, rants by the believers , the insults? Have I joined Jerry and the pfishers on the don’t bother to read list?
This article provides the means for some aspiring physicist to gain fame and fortune.
In the past when reality didn’t conform to theory the problem was solved by creating a new subatomic particle that made reality conform to theory. This led to many a Nobel Prize and professional esteem. Why not now?
It would be easy to modify the characteristics of the photon from a bundle of waves with no mass to a combination of waves with a new subatomic particle with no mass, the minuston. When light is emitted at the speed of light, time and distance disappear. What is happening is the minuston loses mass at a steady rate. Its increasing negative mass explains why the energy of light decreases with distance, even as its velocity remains constant. Since this subatomic particle is part of the quantum realm, where gravity does not exist, the negative mass would require no adjustment to the 95% of the universe that is invisible.
Has anybody wondered why at the speed of light E=mc^2 while at lower velocities E=1/2mv^2? Where did the other half of the energy come from? The answer, dictated by symmetry, is that it is from the negative mass universe.
We’ve already established and proven antimatter and dark matter, why not negative matter and negative energy? With the simple discovery of this new realm of negative energy and mass the size of reality doubles and possible answers expand. There would no more restraints from no negative temperatures on the Kelvin scale or violations of the first law of thermodynamics. Energy and mass would not be created or destroyed but converted from negative to positive, which occurs when numbers are squared.
By modifying the CERN’s accelerator the existence of the minuston could be easily confirmed. After the modifications (which should cost less than 20 billion dollars) a two month run where no evidence was found would be concrete proof of existence the minuston.
By preserving the science of physics and confirming that Einstein was the greatest genius who ever lived the enterprising physicist who solves the dilemma is sure to win multiple No Bells prizes.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You ask: “”How did this article slip to the second page without comments? Where are the rebuttals, rants by the believers , the insults? Have I joined Jerry and the pfishers on the don’t bother to read list?”
You (Herb) seem to assume that an article and/our comment which receives no comments has not been read. Explain why you assume this as you might be the the only PSI render who assumes this. I only discovered PSI on Memorial Day of 1916. Which I read was about 7 years after John O’Sullivan and others created this website eo allow people who questioned the validity of the theory pf the GHE of atmospheric carbon dioxide gas to have sn international English forum to share their reasoning and knowledge and hopefully actual physical data (the basis of Science).
To try to generate some controversy (hence interest) in what you and I write. I ask do you know there are two fundamental physical sciences?
Have a good day
Reply