[Shiva]

“So, parallel after reflection and ether wind inside the wave fronts is not relevant.”

This is not necessarily true in mechanical waves. If one considers different frames such as a river and the riverbank the reflection is dependent upon the frame of the mirror. there’s something called moving mirror aberration.

“This is self evident according to the wave model based on phase. In the wave model only phase is relevant and phase does not change with ether wind inside the wave fronts.”

Simply thinking about phase is NOT SUFFICIENT when considering mechanical waves. The doppler effect, for instance can be created two ways in a mechanical situation. Either they are inscribed into the medium closer together or further apart, or for someone moving wrt the medium they can be encountered more or less frequently. Wavelength and frequency are not a singular thing in a mechanical wave.

Phase relationships are relative to a single peak, yet the angle of incidence can be changed by the motion of the medium, this change can also results in changes to wavelength. (they call it relativistic doppler shift)

“In the wave model only phase is relevant and phase does not change with ether wind inside the wave fronts. So, v is added to c without changing c.”<div>

What c and What c? Where is the consideration of the medium??? Speaking about a wave model necessitates speaking about a medium. The belief that waves can exist without a medium is literally mentally handicapped. It’s mainstream and it’s stupid beyond any idiotic thing ever believed before. A wave is a disturbance of a collection of things with competing restorative forces. It is a disturbance of the equilibrium and CANNOT EXIST without a medium any more than an ocean wave can exist without the ocean. The belief that a behavior is a object is MORONIC. the fact that many people believe it makes no difference. It’s a verb not a noun!

So, again, you can’t just consider phase independent of the motion and most importantly, size, according to a specific frame of reference. When a mechanical wave is projected into a wind at an angle to that wind it is both bent and shortened in a way that will alter phase relationships.

This is irrefutable simple wave mechanics

“Vector sum describes direction of max amplitude in a beam, but in coherent and phase based systems only wave fronts (no max) are important and describing wave front normal or ray that is relevant due to phase”

You’re getting lost in mathematical abstractions. There’s a difference between theory and lab and you’re too disconnected from the real world effects because mathematics sometimes abstracts things too far.

A coherent beam of a wave (which can be done with ultrasound”) which is shot across a crosswind will be bent. It will NOT be straight. There are many other considerations that come in to play at other angles.

This is just wave mechanics, but if you you rely on thinks like simple vectors you’re going to miss things like curves.

“No, I am not ignoring the medium, but you have not understood that many, many very, very small particles in the ether is the medium and light is just a behavior of that ether”

That’s luminiferous ether from its inception. Mechanical waves are a behavior of a medium with restorative forces. I hope you mean just normal waving and not that weird semi-ballistic model I saw. Now I’m not sure if it was yours or someone else’s. Since we argued about it I was sure it was yours, now I’m confused whose it is. Regardless, it won’t work because it can’t create interference.

“So, light is described by waves only and particles are needed only in the ether model. No photons. No tilting in reference arm in MMX and not in the stellar aberration.”

You’ve got some really weird disconnect here in the way you are stating it. Ether as a medium, has waves in it, these are light in ether theory.

Photons are an abstraction from Einstein that are useful but descend from him have a pseudo-ballistic view circa 1905 which he later corrected.

Stellar aberration was literally part of aether theory for god’s sake the evidence for stellar aberration is ultra-voluminous and irrefutable!

You can create a Michelson interferometer for waves in the air and if you use a highly coherent sound source, you would have to aim it forward of the sound reflective surface out to the side of a wind. This is just like aiming ahead of the spot on a distant riverbank you want to arrive at when you are swimming.

This is normal wave mechanics. You are just confused about coherent light and all the relativity nonsense has made it so that you follow the mathematical forms that ignore mechanical wave effects. Mechanical waves MUST CONSIDER MEDIUM.

(and there’s no such ting as non-mechanical waves, the distinction is superstitious bullshit)

“The illusion of tilting is the cause of the twin paradox and time dilation. Quanta in etherons but not in light and not in energy.”

Here forward you start to make some semblance of sense again but it doesn’t fit with prior statements.

I’ve been teaching there’s an illusion in SR for nearly 10 years now and you’re the first to echo the word directly back to me, but the message seems garbled by the telephone game already. The illusion is isotropic constancy.

If you are saying that a spherical wave can allow you to capture its reflection at a point different from the one you think you are capturing, then sure I agree there is problem with angle of incidence from a spherical light source in a moving medium. If you tried to shine a laser at 90deg to wind in a michelson experiment with a very strong wind, the laser would miss the mirror altogether. You’d have to aim it forward because the beam would bend with the wind.

As for you etherons… I’m not sure what purpose they are supposed to serve. I’ll but that the apparent quantization is only in the medium and not in the particle model which is just an abstraction just like a phoNon.

“This is Sagnac effect and can be united with ether theory.”

Only if you consider a localized frame of reference defined by a medium or the average of he medium’s position. If you’re wanting to point out that we defined a local frame in previous considerations aberration, sure I can get on board with that.

“We have a bad understanding of the wave model and the transition from particles (Newton) to waves (Maxwell) is not yet finished.”

This is weird. Yes, I agree that having waves without a medium is stupid beyond repair. I also agree that the only division of the medium of aether hat makes much sense is at the plank scale, but there are certainly other ways to divide a continuous substance, especially with things like laminar flow where the shearing divisions are pretty obvious.

So the wave model of light was just fine until all the 1905 confusion where quanta were discovered, but quanta are an energy amount that doesn’t have physical reality. you can treat phoNons as quantum mechanical discrete entities but everyone knows they are energy amounts relative to he medium, not anything physically real and separate from the medium.

As for the paper you included, I’ve already read a lot of your papers. I’m not reading another paper by you until you demonstrate you’ve read some of mine.
</div>

[Shiva]

Ahh, I’ve looked at your channel and it seems you use streamyard, great!

Are you still doing this on Saturday? What is the format specifically? Is it debate or simply a chat about aether in general or what?

I can promise to go easy on you if that’s something you’re concerned about.

[Shiva]

Incidentally, this is a topic I can talk about for hours on end because there are so many details that have to be hashed out and so many implications. Having multiple people at once might be difficult for me because I need people to focus for long period of time to understand the whole set of circumstances and ideas that they need to grasp.

By way of demonstration let me give you a couple interviews I’ve already done.

Here below is my interview with Deepak Chopra that happened because of the strong correlation between spiritual insights and technological intuitions that come from deep antiquity that also align with aether: (something I won’t be discussing at all in a scientific discussion)

https://youtu.be/c_cx5lrpno4
(Immediately I recorded a longer and more detailed version of the presentation here: https://youtu.be/A7fpkVFrBKY?t=346)

Here is an interview with a UFOlogist I did about how it interacts with the UAP releases from the government etc:

https://youtu.be/mSwzuZdo_5w

[Shiva]

It just stuck my reply up above…. this bulletin board system is really clunky

[Shiva]

You seem not to understand all I say, since you point out that I cannot have light without an ether and not phase without motion. You do not have to ‘correct’ what I already have said.

I may indeed be misunderstanding you. That’s just going to happen, so I apologize in advance for this unavoidable problem.

I do, however, need to “correct” three different things. What you believe, what I believe and what the mainstream believe. That is, the correction progress is a level above those three. What I believe about what you believe etc… We have to properly separate and compare these three worldviews and what each of us believes about them. (a set of 6 data objects) to be able to communicate so we’re going to fail that juggling act on occasion.

I regard ether as an entity and light as a behavior of that entity and also that phase is a part in describing motion of a surface.

Phase as motion of surface is not a description I would use. Phase is the relationship of arbitrary markers within two moving trains of virtual objects. Waves as peaks and crests are maxima and minima of behaviors that are propagating. But in a physical sense, when referring to a mechanical wave in particular, we must remember that the motion itself is virtual because the object is virtual. A peak and trough of behaviors called waving is an abstract concept not a physical object.

Can we agree this is an undeniable truth of mechanical waves?

I need you to answer this specific question directly because I must update my model of your understanding of mechanical waves with a yes or no that it matches my own. It is a possible source of confusion and miscommunication.

You do not regard this important distinction between beam and ray, that was missed between 1882 and 1887.

This idea of beam versus ray is going to only be clarified when discussing mechanical wave propagation. Waves which are usually spherical lead to bad conceptualizations in moving systems. But yes, you are right, I don’t frequently focus on this particular concept.

For instance, if it were somehow possible to travel faster than sound without significantly churning the medium, do you realize that a voice emitted from an emitter that exceeds the speed of sound would be heard in reverse by a ground based observer?

So when it is possible to emit a highly collimated beam of waves, that beam may match a “ray” or may not but a ray is virtualized conception.

Let us put this in particulars. If I could somehow emit a beam of waves from one bank of a river to the opposite, one could trace a straight line from emission to reception and call this a ray. It would not, however, represent the real world path of the first wavefront that traces a curved path across the moving water.

These concepts are extremely important for better understanding the difference between an aether theory and some field theories. I have not encountered anyone other than myself that has noticed this. So perhaps you have noticed this and thus you’re attempting to communicate some specific consequence of what I’ve just described.

I would not generally expect this because even professionals in a variety of scientific fields don’t typically follow this particular subtlety.

To cover up for this error the Lorentz factor was invented, resulting in the twin paradox.

I think you’ve got a tiger by the tail with this perspective. I mean that you’re on to something but it’s flung you off in he wrong direction. It’s not just this problem above. There is real world object shortening required for a michelson null. There are too many experiments that are indeed null (along with many other things) for shortening to be a completely false effect. The only reason Michelson and Miller’s experiments weren’t actually null is because of aether drag.

but I regard the cause to be observer motion and not wave front tilting. How could you miss that?

Well it’s not entirely clear what mechanics you are trying to communicate. You have said that Stellar aberration doesn’t occur, so that’s quite confusing.

I personally find your current short description to be matching my own but I’m pretty sure you don’t mean it in the way I do.

IE if we think of a specific beam emanating from a planet towards the location of earth, the motion of the earth will make that beam miss us. However, because multiple beam are emitted we run into a different one and still see the star. This results in the same effect as seeing rain seeming to come in at an angle toward you when you’re moving forward in a car when it’s actually falling straight down.

One might draw a false “ray” toward where they believe the raindrop originated based on the angle it is approaching from. This would be a difference between a beam and a ray. The virtual nature of the ray is misleading. the same would happen observing incoming waves across a river. A ray wouldn’t reflect the real path of the beam. Thus, waves in a medium, can create an aberration effect just like particles can.

In my opinion we have no quanta in light. An illusion based on observing electrons (matter). No quanta in energy (observing electrons). But we have quanta in ether entities, (particles, etherons) as suggested in Fatio’s quantum gravity 300 years ago.

Okay, I’ll provisionally agree. I too believe we’re just seeing phase transitions and drawing arbitrary borders where there aren’t real ones. I do however believe there may be something like particles at the planck scale. If you want to call those “etherons,” I’ve got no problem with it.

No, the wave model is not yet fine, but very, very wrong, since the large gaps in our understanding of light waves are covered up with absurd particle based ideas resulting in individual aging.

That’s not really the wave model you’re talking about. It’s called a wave model but it’s a field model. It’s a new thing altogether and doesn’t match basic science. It proposes waves occurring in nothing and cannot separate out a difference between a ray and a beam. There is no understanding of the necessities of a real travel time because light in the current model behaves in a way such that it’s effectively infinite and traveling at exactly C.

It’s mathematical pedants not understanding that rationality must come before numerology.

So it seems we are in agreement about some aspect of it if not all of it. It seems to me that you recognize a piece of the puzzle but not all of it yet.

This model assumes an attenuation in matter to create a radial ether wind that possibly can explain gravity.

Yes, I have problems with that approach. The approach by the Cosserat brothers is far superior in its ability to fit all phenomena and experimentation that is part of modern theory.

Therefore, an decreased motion of Pioneer can be an illusion due to this change

I also agree with this basis of explanation of pioneer anomaly. A variable speed of light is present in GR though and modern people just aren’t understanding that fact. GR is an aether theory and people have either forgotten or never understood its history and basis.

If you were ever on the anti-relativity site in the past 15 years you might have run into that basis of explanation I’ve been giving all this time.

However, my reason for the variation in the speed of light is closely linked with GR, gravity and how those things are mediated in an aether medium. The same thing that makes clocks run faster in space on satellites is the variable speed of light which is determined by the average bulk modulus of the local medium. (generally rendered as “rigidity”)

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Shiva. Reason: my keyboard is going bad on T and M in particular

[Shiva]

“Ether particles move in all directions with high speed. However, ether itself is constituted by an average value of all particles and therefore adjusted by attenuation in matter. This unbalance is gravity or ether wind.”

Our theories are analogies at this point but the specifics are different. Have you read any of my papers? (I’ve read yours) https://philpeople.org/profiles/shiva-meucci

In my theory the average vorticity of the aether is the cause. Aether is in motion, but in very short range turbulence-like effects. It’s based in Kelvin’s vortex atom model to a certain extend, but instead of there being particles flying around through emptiness, it’s a super-rigid structure whirling around and the focal points of that motion are matter.

This comes from reversing the assumptions of Fresnel’s equation for wave speed in a substance. (refraction) Instead of increased aether desnsity, it’s decreased rigidity caused by vorticity. (with near or beyond light-speed rotations occurring at ultra small scales.

This is what is described in my papers above, but I also link it with neuroscience and computer engineering as well as advancements in information theory which result in a new theoretical framework for consciousness.

“A flat wave front, parallel to a flat mirror, is still parallel after reflection. This is independent of changing ether wind inside the planes of wave fronts and of mirror.”

Here you are deviating from known mechanical wave physics which is something In strongly adhere to. Wave mechanics are based upon the stationary or average location (when turbulent) of the medium in question. Thus, when you drop a pebble in a placid river, the center of the circle moves alongside the riverbank but retains a circular look upon the moving frame of the river.

There are TONS of confusions given by modern EM engineering and things we’ve learned how to make work like phased arrays and it takes a long time with a person to teach them to re-integrate the mechanical wave consequences that have been lost in the past century of signal analysis.

“So, ether wind inside the wave fronts is irrelevant in coherent systems.”

Here’s the major deviation. For my theory ALL phenomena are just motions of the aether or cavitations in it. You’ve expressed something above that makes it such hatn you are NOT treating light as a mechanical wave. This is a crucial point of classical wave mechanics. The idea of a wave without a medium is COMPETE CRAZY NONSENSE.

It’s been accepted for over 100 years as part of a religious-like belief system, but it’s pure superstitious magical thinking. A behavior of equilibrium dynamics between components of a substance, cannot exist on its own. An action cannot happen without an actor. A “jog” cannot exist without a “jogger.” It’s pure (but mainstream) BATSHIT INSANITY.

“Coherent systems, based on phase, are defining constant wave fronts in collimators, detecting constant wave fronts in telescopes and therefore interferometers also operate with constant wave fronts. NO WAVE FRONT TILTING IN MMX (TRANSVERSE ARM) AND NOT IN STELLAR ABERRATION EITHER.”

Wait, what? Are you denying that stellar aberration occurs? A coherent wave can be created in a medium. Phased arrays of ultrasonic emitters create directionalized sound because of he organizational effect on the medium itself creates a nonlinear situation vaguely reminiscent of solitons.

However, in an air wind that beam will be bent instead of straight, and in an aether theory a laser will be bent in a wind.

The Michelson was NOT NULL, and neither were the tens of thousands of experiments by dayton miller. The reason for the replication problems is the fact that he replicators don’t understand the theory behind the design and don’t understand the optics correctly.

Only Michelson and Miller use white light which requires exact arm length matching and they always do it in open air. THESE TWO THINGS ARE REQUIRED for an interferometer to be non-null in Lorentzian Aether. (this is a very long discussion I’m shortening immensely)

https://qr.ae/pG0nlc

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Shiva. Reason: Forgot to italicize your text I was quoting
• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Shiva.

[Shiva]

Yeah sorry for the long delay, along with a lot of crazy events in my personal life, I also had to fit in an important event. Some of the progenitors of modern science and technology were listening (one of them a Nobel laureate who told me his work is paralleling my own)
Here’s that presentation I captured on my channel if you’re interested: https://youtu.be/jDXMS7mCqzw

Let me see if I can catch up a little and get back to you

[Shiva]

But like I said… I can go easy on you on your show. I’m okay with fighting and making up. I’m not some grudge holding little girl. Call me sexist if you like but men take it on the chin and get over it. So you think I’m some arrogant asshole, fine. I think you’re judgmental and overly biased. Who cares?

Let’s still debate the actual topic because even though you’ve met people I’ve influenced over so many years and people I know like Eric Reiter and Steven Bryant… you haven’t met me.

You think you’ve heard what “Aetherists” have to offer but you haven’t heard me.

That’s confidence based on real experience talking to real modern scientists and physicists and a few nobel laureates along the way. If you want to mistake it for arrogance, that’s quite literally your problem, not mine.

I get the job done and HAVE been getting the job done for a lot of years now. I won’t stop now.

We SHOULD be allies, but you felt the need to disrespect me and “put me in my place” by pointedly ignoring me and obviously calling me arrogant. So let’s get over this personal crap and get the job done together.

It’s an important job and our personal squabbles should take a damned back seat!

[Shiva]

Can you say that the aether model can be wrong?

Well of course. That’s absolutely ridiculous. I regularly and genuinely consider the possibility I may be a Boltzmann brain, or an AI in training in which case all my memories and ideas could be complete trash. In fact there are many details that have to be investigated that haven’t. It’s utterly anti-science to claim the absolute truth of a theory.

your accusation is bunk because the premise of the accusation is utterly bunk and I don’t know if you’re hiding it from others or hiding it from yourself. You only made the accusation specifically for he purpose of passive aggression. To insult me sideways instead of to my face. That’s why your claim is crap. You made it up on the spot. Basically ALL other aetherists have upheld normal scientific doubt. So stop chasing your tail and admit you meant it towards me.

or answer with a long diatribe, than my point is proven at least with you.

Nonsense. The length of my answer makes me somehow wrong. What have we fully bought into the twitter age where no one who isn’t there with quick high-school quips is seen as the loser?

As for diatribe, if you handle a little heat then don’t pretend to be a revolutionary, you haven’t got the chops. I’ve been attacked non-stop for 20 years. I guess it might have been your father who asked for space on the anti-relativity forum way back when, but I was deep into the fight in a very public way already by that point. Taking hit after hit after hit for little communities like this.

I was accused of anti-Semitism before I knew the definition of the word or even that it still -weirdly – exists.

So I’ll diatribe as much as I like and it says not a damned thing about truth or falsehood.

So how is it you “know” who I am???

By the fact that you ignored me purposely and made comments about arrogance. Religious quotes are handy in cases like this. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

But if you’re willing to say right now you did not THINK that, then I’ll take you at your word. NOTE: I didn’t ask if you didn’t SAY that. I tire of the “I’m not touching you” kids game where people use technicalities so I’ll ask you to instead be honest with yourself. Did you THINK I was arrogant before writing the lines about arrogance?

Let’s see some bravery and honesty and then I’ll be able to re-assess who you are.

Right now I know you judge a book by its cover. That’s who you are. Prove me wrong.

If what you said bothered me,

Said to Whom? When? Where? You mean to de Hilster? I didn’t know he was your father. Still not certain that’s true or if I’m misunderstanding… Is he your father or not? You refused to answer this question I asked above… quite suspiciously omitted the answer.

If what you said bothered me, than you would be right. But what you say has no basis and personal attacks only show emotion, not logic.

Your Jedi mind tricks could use some work. You’re the one who was insulting. Acting like no one here could pick up that you were being aggressive is also pretending they have no ability to know what’s going on around them. So now you’ve insulted the readers too.

Are you defending de Hilster or not because it’s CRYSTAL CLEAR in the history above there were no personal attacks above save yours.

You are right and I am wrong. You know that. So let’s leave me be wrong and go on.

This is called psychological projection. You’re the one overly certain. It’s because you think I’m arrogant that you can’t believe for one moment that I currently think it could just be some weird misunderstanding but factually I do believe that’s possible. (after all I don’t even know who your father is… it’s a different last name. I’m confused about it) That’s where your poorly conceived blanket insult of all aetherists came from. A jab at me.

Man UP!

So now. Answer the question and let’s get to truth. Reveal your thoughts or admit you’re full of it with your silence. Did you THINK I was arrogant before you posted the statement about arrogant aetherists? Can you be honest with yourself and others? What was your IMPRESSION before writing those lines.

Prove a point.

[Shiva]

Okay we’re still at an impasse on the mechanism for light. It seems you are focused more on gravity and leaving wave mechanics to others. Unfortunately this leaves a huge problem.

Some places we do agree is that:

1) Light speed is not isotropic. It is faster in space.
2) Matter causes a slowing of light

3) Pioneer anomaly is caused by these changes in light speed

4) Big bang and galactic red shift are an illusion

5) Aether is moving rapidly in all directions (however, in my theory not in straight lines for long distances)
6) Aether state causes clock changes (not spacetime coords… but I also do not require a wind)

Places we disagree:

1) Aether sinks and sources are not part part of my view (*though there is minute amounts of it occurring in perfect balance)
2) Radial aether wind is not necessary to explain gravity

Most importantly:

3) “Coherent systems define wavefront orientation…”

This is an aspect of relativity that is garbage. It doesn’t fit with mechanical wave theory and requires all the baggage of 4D spacetime to work mathematically.

The apparent vector of a coherent beam without reference to the frame of the medium is nonsense and illusion. It causes all sorts of problems with doppler and the speed of light under the “wiping” condition. (plane waves striking a surface barely off the 90 deg angle)

So yes, there is an illusion created by Lorentz… He did it on purpose. But there is real time dilation in the mechanical wave system of Lorentz before Einstein ever got involved. It’s Minkowski and spacetime that confuse everything. Einstein eventually admitted the need for an aether.

There’s real mechanics developed by Heaviside and Kelvin to describe all the how’s and why’s of time dilation and length contraction under a physical wave system in a medium that conforms to Maxwell’s equations. Those developments and conversations have just been lost to history and forgotten about.

Nothing in present science needs to change dramatically other than the understanding of what the math represents. Time dilation IS real, and apparent time contraction is also therefore a real effect.

That’s where it all goes wrong. There is an “anti-relativity” that is automatically present when you understand Lorentz-Poincare relativistic aether.

“Anti-relativity” = There is also apparent time contraction and length dilation. (via frame comparison) And this perspective is determined by one’s motion with repsect to the preferred frame.

General relativity already infers this!! That’s clocks in space don’t ALSO think clocks on earth are running faster too. That irrational nonsense comes from a lack of preferred frame… GR IS A PREFERRED FRAME THEORY.

All the weird and crazy logic problems are solved by embracing anti-relativity that comes automatically from a preferred frame.

None of this actually contradicts Einstein’s later work… it’s only Minkowski’s trash that is the problem and it’s only there because he died abruptly after Einstein ridiculed him and then everyone jumped Einstein’s case in public papers about it.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01846

[Shiva]

Ah yes, that is a little strange. This bulletin board software has a few kinks. David may kick me out soon, so sorry if I exit the conversation unexpectedly. Jerry knows how to get a hold of me.

Okay can you give me the shortest roadmap to the features of your model of light in particular? Specifically the issue with light is the one where there was an infeasibility I can’t let go but if that’s something you’re not married to and you would like to still support the aether, then I think we can come to an agreement on forward development.

I actually would like to collaborate with this community but if here is something that strongly falsifies an idea I simply cannot let it go until it is worked out.

It could just be that I’ve totally confused your model with someone else’s because I thought you had this idea of ballistic particles that were bunched by their timing alone as the method of wave mechanism.

So please send me your shortest and most concise bullet list or something on your model of light. Thanks

[Shiva]

So you’re saying that light is not mechanical or explicable in any way, it just IS, like most people teach in relativity classes today?

There’s no shifting back and forth (round and round) of any substance in a transverse wave and there’s no bunching of any kind in a longitudinal wave. There is no medium whatsoever doing anything at all. There’s just waves existing on their own with no explanation other than they simply exist, just like light in today’s explanation

Please answer the extended and detailed question above before touching on anything else.

Your idea of aether (completely unrelated to light) is some sort of particles in space moving in all directions and then because matter casts a shadow for these particle streams. That shadowing effect leads to more particles moving toward than away and this mediates gravity.

Therefore there is no luminiferous aether in your view, only gravitational, in your view. Correct?

[Shiva]

You’ve directly responded to everyone else on this thread (not me) and then made some sideways comment about how HUGE of a problem confident aetherists are.

Insults received loud and clear. Logged appropriately, David.

Thanks for letting me know Exactly who you are.

[Shiva]

Well I’d be glad to address the specific problems you say aetherists ignore.

Bear in mind however that it seems you will be doing a “power of the mic” maneuver by it being only on your show, you being the moderator and editor, and finally you being the only one knowing (and having prep-time for) the issues you plan to discuss.

I’m still willing to take you on, however, even under those conditions but again I’d like to live cast it to my channel at the same time.

Unfortunately I have an appointment at 3 EST tomorrow and don’t know how long it will run. When were you planning to do this?

Is de Hilster your father. I’m confused because of the names.

[Shiva]

Well yes, I can actually see an argument -not a good one- for transverse but it seems like you’re just moving the goalposts.

That wasn’t the demonstration I saw nor was it the subject. My point stands about the original demonstration you give for how light behaves. (bunching)

So now you’re intimating that, instead of bunching, it’s a direction of motion of the particle that is cancelled out. It changes the problem but far from solves it.

The extension of this new claim is that particles striking a surface have to be wiping back and forth across it to transmit light but if that wiping motion is cancelled then the light isn’t transmitted. IE light particles (or whatever you’re calling them) striking a surface at exactly a 90 degree angle should NOT transmit light. This is the only way destructive interference could work in this new claim.

Unfortunately this means that the cancellation would make the normal intensity of a wave flicker at the frequency of the wave. It doesn’t. Furthermore it would make it such that various interference experiments would give a completely different fringe pattern based upon angles of incidence since a wiping motion of ballistic particles is just a change in angles of incidence.

This new goalpost that we’ve now traversed, also leads to complete failure of a ballistic theory.

I’m sorry but there are a hundred other problems for ballistic light beyond these I’ve mentioned. I wanted to keep it simple and direct instead of touching on the other problems. It’s just not workable and moving the goalposts wont save it.

Ballistic light absolutely, positively will not work within experimental record.