One real Universe am infinite. When are you people going to understand that reality has a surface and the best way to verify this is by noting that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of surfaces. The reason it is so easy for one to spot the surfaces is because light DOES NOT HAVE A SURFACE, so light needs a surface in order to be seen.

Light is incapable of "moving" through a slit because the slit portion appears not to have a surface. Of course the light striking a surface behind a slit is going to appear differently than it would when it strikes the surface behind a barrier containing multiple slits.

Infinity cannot contain finite time or finite distance.

Joe Fisher, Unaffiliated, orcid.org/0000-0003-3988-8687

  • [deleted]

If you can determine which path a given photon took (presumably from the time-of-flight) then there will be no interference. There is no need to bounce off Jupiter. You can do a similar experiment in a lab with a beamsplitter and two unequal spools of fiber. It doesn't involve gravity then, but it will show the effect that if the paths can be distinguished by time of flight, phase coherence is destroyed.

    There is no such thing as a photon. It is physically impossible to isolate any one thing in infinity.

    Joe Fisher

    "If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. Together they knit together to create a spacetime fabric that pervades the universe. This notion of time as a dynamic, flexible dimension forms the basis of his immensely successful general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity manifests on cosmic scales as matter warps spacetime. On the other hand, however, the equally celebrated theory of quantum mechanics, which governs the nanoscale behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, says that time is unaffected by the presence of matter, serving as an absolute background reference clock against which motion can be measured. So which one is right?"

    Quantum mechanics. Time is not affected by matter/gravity - general relativity is wrong and should be discarded. Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift and inform the gullible world that they have proved gravitational time dilation:

    "A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

    "Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

    Just as in the Pound-Rebka experiment, the gravitational redshift always confirms the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

    Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

    Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

    Pentcho Valev

      Einsteinians reject, more or less explicitly, the absurd consequence, Einstein's spacetime, but continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

      What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

      Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

      Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

      "Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

      "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

      "...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

      "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

      "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

      "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

      Pentcho Valev

      The real Universe am infinite. Einstein did not know what a real infinity was.

      Joe Fisher

      Hello Mr Fisher,

      Eisntein was one of the biggest thinker of our world, he saw the generality of things.

      That is why he pondered his equation about entropy

      Regards

      Alas, Albert Einstein was an abstractions addicted ignoramus as are the people who run and comment at this site.

      The real Universe am infinite. Finite amounts of energy, mass and light speed cannot exist infinitely. Matter cannot possibly be finite for that would entail that matter would have had to have a finite commencement from infinite non-matter. The moment that happened, non-matter would not be infinite would it?

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      • [deleted]

      Apparently you do not know what is an addition or a multiplication or an exponential Mr Fisher,

      ps you are on this site also ?

      Please fqxi ,people still hack my pc ,it is tiring ,help me,I am not good in algorythms and pc,pleasee, the cause is from LinkedIn I think

      It is fom India I beleive but I am not sure, I have some names but I am not sure

      Dear Steve,

      I know that all mathematics is finite abstraction. I know that the absurd claims put forth by Newton, Einstein and Hawking are finite abstractions that have nothing to do with the real Universe that am infinite.

      This site has published 4 of my essays. This site removed my comment that all real things have a real surface and therefore all real surfaces must travel at the same constant speed. As light cannot have a surface, real light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. Dr. Brendan Foster marked it as unacceptable SPAM. If you complain about these posts, Dr Brendan Foster will dutifully remove all of my comments for you.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Mr Fisher,

      You know, in the past I was too much arrogant and too much parano, be sure that it is not the good way. Mr Foster is a moderator, so he has a responsability when people are not correct or too much arrogant.Severalofmy posts in the past were deleted, and frankly it was better like that. It is just for your reputation. It is better to be more calm and more civilized you know,you can tell us your ideas with a more calm attitude.

      About your reallight being a stationary substance, I don't understand you?

      Light is composed by particles in motion,c,and the fermions on the line time evolution encode particles and their informations,that is why the mass increases.It is difficult to understand you there?

      Why you see light in this line of stationary reasoning? It isnot rational in fact Mr Fisher?

      Regards

      Dear Steve,

      One real Universe am infinite. One real substance must be infinite. Finite particles cannot be infinite. Therefore, light cannot consist of finite particles and the only way light could be infinite would be if it did not have a finite surface but attached itself to an infinite surface. When you look at the stars, or a lightning bolt, or an active light bulb, you can easily determine that the light does not move from its source.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Hello Mr Fisher,

      I am sorry to disagree. In my model of spherisation,it is essential for the proportions to have a finite universal sphere in evolution. That said I agree about the finite quantum entanglement.

      Light also is a finite system with its informations.I have really difficulties to encircle your line of reasoning.

      The finite systems are essential for the encoding of informations with its sortings and superimposings.

      Light is from stars which is also a finite system.

      Light is always from its source you know,even when we analyze the quantum state and the separation of energy from the fermionic state.

      I see only infinity when we are above our planck scales, quant or cosmo,so above our walls of perception.Or with adds or multiplications, but never for our physicality and its uniqueness. If you said me that energy is infinite, there I can agree but for the physicality I have difficulties, really.

      Best Regards

      This is a good but not great experiment. Similar to the time delays or gravitational deflection of quasars as a function of earth's orbit about the sun, this measurement will result in two correlated circles of time delay interferences superimposed on each other from each of the moons of Saturn.

      [link:mattertimemeaning.blogspot.com/2015/04/deflection-of-starlight-by-sun.html]Deflection of Starlight by the Sun[/link]

      This shows many references and also shows that these kinds of radiotelescope measurements have a great deal of noise, especially when the radiotelescope is close to the direction of the sun. It is not clear if these workers in this latest rendition will have enough signal to noise to actually do this measurement.

      It is further not clear what new information about cosmic time delays it will reveal besides what has been amply demonstrated time and again, but what the heck...

      The LISA pathfinder experiment that is heading out to L1 very soon will be much more fun. LISA's precise weighing of two very cold 2 kg Au/Pt cubes in a well controlled L1 orbit promises to reveal much more about the nature of our aether reality. The confusion of geodesics at L1 results in a gravity beamsplitter that should show quantum effects.

      [link:mattertimemeaning.blogspot.com/2014/07/gravitational-beamsplitter.htmlGravitational Beamsplitter[/link]

      Will the cubes become entangled at L1 and show interference effects beyond the interferometry that will measure their masses? That would be a lot of fun...

        Hello Mr Agnew,

        I agree about this experiment, it is good but not really relevant considering that these waves are above the logic of our electromagnetic waves.

        That said, it becomes relevant in inserting several parameters in this interfermotry of Michelson.The 75 per cent of Au and 25 per cent of Pl wawww,but is it relevant for this gravitomagnetism.

        I have an idea, a spherical rotor with the good proportion of elements and of course more my humble équations about sphères,quant and cosmol.

        With an algorythm permitting to sort the other cosmological perturbations.An other algorythm can be inserted with the volumes of cosmological sphères,we can so find the central main cosmological sphère and so its effects on the spacetime respecting the general relativity.

        Just a thought

        Regards

        There is aproblem with our newtonian mecanic and our perception with our electromagnetism.The velocies of particles and also the mass of cosmological black sphères are a problem for the gravitomagnetism.

        Newtonian field and Einsteinian field are not sufficient at my humble opinion.

        Just a thought.

        There is a correspondance that said for these gravitational fields.