OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIE
I am following discussion regarding the "Open Letter to the Royal Society." The topic is very interesting and that is worthy to organize the general discussion in order to get physically based attitudes related to EMW. I think that is good and addresses selected also. However, by posting such a topic we have to be careful and mast not to correct noticed errors with new ones. When I say this I have in mind the question: "What replaces contested attitude?" I consider myself a dissident, because many of my do not agree with the official views of scientific community. It can be concluded from some of my works and models of Nature, which I have developed (Natural Model of Nature - NMN model). But I can not agree with this question and request. The reason for my disagreement is following:
Electromagnetic waves are a process that spread across the space with constant speed of spreading, which depends on the appropriate characteristics of medium which is a carrier of this process.
It is not, therefore, error in the conclusion that the speed of EMW is constant, but the absence of physical models of EMT, and how this conclusion is implemented in the theory of Relativity.
I insist on the term of speed of spreading, which has nothing to do with the speed of movement of particles and bodies. Einschein and Newton made an error becouse they assume that a carrier of this process starts movement from the source of EMW to a sensor that will register it. Many errors in the theory of relativity come from these assumptions and it should be an item for discussion.
Upper definition is based on the assumption that the environment through which the stretch EMW has a particle nature with electrical charge. It must be of a permanently maintained system of particles that behave according to some natural laws (the most probably already known). In spite of that, the particles, which are several orders of magnitude smaller than electrons, are carriers of electromagnetic processes. They do not move through space, but only oscillate around your balanced position. Oscillations process one of them, regardless of how caused, transferred to the neighboring particles through the electromag¬netic process and spreads through the space. It is about an energy process that cannot be instantaneous but requires some time to be established, so that a new particle starts oscillate with some time delay, in relation to the actuator, which depends on the disposition of particles in space and their characteristics. Speed of establishment depends of the times derivation of appropriate energy function and the characteristics of this particles system that are constant. In such processes, and they are typical for waves, as the speed of spreading can mark
Speed of wave spreading is the sum of time delays activation of particles reduced to one second.
With this model EMW mentioned equation is not worthy. The starting waves process does not depend more nether from the sources speed nor of observers movement. It continues to autonomously spread even when the source of the EMW turned off. That does not mean that the speed of their movement does not have an effect on the information that observer receives through its senses or instruments on the progress observed waves process. From the relationship of these speeds depends on the registered frequency observed EMW, or we meet up with the appearance of Dopplers effect. Presented model is simplified, and by its detailed analysis would have to be taken into account and possible modulation of basically wave by some influence of the surrounding particles, but also about frequenters throughput of our sensors, were they biologically or technically.
This model EMW call into question many of the attitudes of the relativity theory and them could be and should discuss, but it is a special and complex issue that, I assume, is not the subject of this debate. According to this the Royal Society, if we want be correct, should not seek refutation the posture of constant speed of EMT but the determining their physical-based models.
I know that this attitude cannot be adopted immediately without further explanation, and I am available for discussion on this topic, if someone interested. Interested reader can some of my attitudes, related to this topic, found in my articles on NPA 16th conference this year and in the article PHOTON - REALITY OR FICTION" published on the site wbabin.net

Re: Milos, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 17 2009 at 7:03 PM

Milos, I read your paper THE ORIGIN OF THE FORCES OF NATURE Chapter XI. You put a bold, and complex, proposal on the table. Although the broken English makes reading time consuming I found that overall you followed a logical train of thought but, it would take some time to absorb the material before asking questions or discussing the subject.

I do have one question, on page 98 you say, "As it is also impossible to quantify matter, because matter is energy ...", would it be fair to read that as "because matter is [condensed] energy"?

Re: Bob s, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 18 2009, 2:05 AM
I think it is an error because I did not write the article to which you mention. I would see it gladly if you send the exact reference to me. Except that, In addition, by all my work I start with the attitude that matter and energy are not the same and do not accept the existence the transformations of type matter energy. My attitude is that the energy is state indissolubly linked to matter (regardless of the matters type) and that in the nature present continuous process of transformation potential energy kinetic energy.
Only what I can accept in your text that is my bad English.

Re: Milos, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 18 2009, 1:53 PM

Re: Bob s, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 18 2009, 2:05 AM I think it is an error because I did not write the article to which you mention."

Milos, here is the paper and the link.

Milos Abadzic: NPA Member - Profile
Added Jun. 9, 2009: Photon - Reality or Fiction
http://wbabin.net/science/abadzic6.pdf
You say it is not your paper, but you referred to it in your opening message on June 17 2009 at 7:03 PM "Interested reader can some of my attitudes, related to this topic, found in my articles on NPA 16th conference this year and in the article PHOTON - REALITY OR FICTION" published on the site wbabin.net"

Bob, notice that there are two people with the same name; one in Belgrade, Serbia; and one in Ottawa, Canada.

And since Stanley16 is out of town for few days, it's left to me to keep the one's in Belgrade as the real one; and to delete the one's in Ottawa as the impostor!

Do you think it's the right decision?

Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 18 2009, 4:37 PM

AAF,
"Bob, notice that there are two people with the same name; one in Belgrade, Serbia; and one in Ottawa, Canada."

You are saying there are two different people with the name Milos Abadzic, one from Belgrade and one from Ottawa, both of whom are posting in strings with the same tag line and the same text, you deleted the one who is an impostor and then ask me if it is the right decision after you've already deleted one of them. I say, keep the the impostor and delete the other one.

Or it may well be the case that there is only one author , who sent it first to Walter, where the same comment was posted twice from Europe & North America!

Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 18 2009, 6:40 PM

"Or it may well be the case that there is only one author , who sent it first to Walter, where the same comment was posted twice from Europe & North America!"

That was to be my third choice!

Re: Bob s, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 18 2009, 7:25 PM
There are no mysteries and double. This was a bug, and no two Milos Abadzic. If you want to explanation send me you email so I can explain, because this is not the issue forums.
Remains to specify the text THE ORIGIN OF THE FORCES OF NATURE I didn't write, so you must seek an explanation from the author.

Let us return to a primary theme: that there is a constant speed of EMW or not. I am my attitude expressed.

Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 18 2009, 6:40 PM

Or it may well be the case that there is only one author , who sent it first to Walter, where the same comment was posted twice from Europe & North America!

Re: AAF, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 18 2009, 6:40 PM

You are right. You have a talent for Sherlock Holm and not as Bob, who calls for fraud. Thank you.

Re: Milos, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 20 2009, 6:47 AM

Milos: "Re: OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 18 2009, 6:40 PM

Or it may well be the case that there is only one author , who sent it first to Walter, where the same comment was posted twice from Europe & North America!

Re: AAF, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 18 2009, 6:40 PM

You are right. You have a talent for Sherlock Holm and not as Bob, who calls for fraud. Thank you."

I did not call you a fraud Milos! I was responding to the humor of AAF, he said one of the posts was from an impostor and I was responding in humor.

If you will recheck my post from June 18, 2009, @ 3:31 PM you will see that I did cite back to your paper, I also said I needed some time to read your work.

Re: Bob s, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY, June 20 2009, 7:54 AM

Apparently it was a little misunderstanding, which is no more. Now we can discuss a little and, of course that is required and a time to get familiar with the material. In addition, it is a very complex matter of which the speed of EMW is only part of the problem. But from something we have to go.

Re: Milos Abadzic OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 17 2009 at 7:03 PM

Milos, "It is not, therefore, error in the conclusion that the speed of EMW is constant, but the absence of physical models of EMT, and how this conclusion is implemented in the theory of Relativity."

I assume that you mean "...and how this conclusion is implemented in the theory of Relativity [is wrong]."

"Electromagnetic waves are a process that spread across the space with constant speed of spreading, which depends on the appropriate characteristics of medium which is a carrier of this process."

I will assume for the sake of this discussion that the medium you are referring to is homogeneous and therefor, the speed of EMW is constant. I also assume that the medium you are referring to is the Aether.

"Einschein and Newton made an error becouse they assume that a carrier of this process starts movement from the source of EMW to a sensor that will register it. Many errors in the theory of relativity come from these assumptions and it should be an item for discussion.I insist on the term of speed of spreading, which has nothing to do with the speed of movement of particles and bodies."

OK! so in your opinion it is not particles (photons) that propagate from the source to the sensor (receptor).

"Upper definition is based on the assumption that the environment through which the stretch EMW has a particle nature with electrical charge."

I read that as the Aether is made up of particles that have an electrical charge, right?

"Upper definition is based on the assumption that the environment [the Aether] through which the stretch EMW has a particle nature with electrical charge."

Based on the above assumptions I agree.

"In spite of that, the particles, which are several orders of magnitude smaller than electrons, are carriers of electromagnetic processes. They do not move through space, but only oscillate around your balanced position."

Based on the above assumptions I agree.

"Oscillations process one of them, regardless of how caused, transferred to the neighboring particles through the electromag¬netic process and spreads through the space."

The propagation of light then, is by transferring oscillations (vibrations) from one Aether particle to the next.

"It is about an energy process that cannot be instantaneous but requires some time to be established, so that a new particle starts oscillate with some time delay, in relation to the actuator, which depends on the disposition of particles in space and their characteristics."

For the sake of discussion let's keep the Aether particles as homogeneous so that the propagation speed remains constant, Ok! We can worry about propagation speeds later if and when we agree on the oscillation (vibration) transfer process.

"Speed of establishment depends of the times derivation of appropriate energy function and the characteristics of this particles system that are constant. In such processes, and they are typical for waves, as the speed of spreading can mark Speed of wave spreading is the sum of time delays activation of particles reduced to one second."

The current model has light propagating as a particle and a wave. It can not be both but it can be neither. Your model has light as propagating as a transfer of energy across the particles of Aether. I suggest that you keep the wave/particle theory of light out of the works and focus on the vibration (oscillations) aspect.

"The starting waves process does not depend more nether from the sources speed nor of observers movement. It continues to autonomously spread even when the source of the EMW turned off."

You are saying that the vibration/oscillations continue after the source has been extinguished, IOW, the speed of "dark", right? Conceivably true, but it would also apply the the current model as well as yours.

"That does not mean that the speed of their movement does not have an effect on the information that observer receives through its senses or instruments on the progress observed waves process. From the relationship of these speeds depends on the registered frequency observed EMW,"

Now is when you start to get really interesting. Light is the natural byproduct of heat, right? (chemical also, but not important now). So far you have light propagating at a constant speed in the homogeneous Aether. And, if light is the byproduct of heat would not the propagation speed be dependent on the energy output of the source ie heat. The question then is, is the propagation speed of light from a dying ember the same as from a raging fire? Is the propagation speed of light from a flashlight the same as from a search light? Is the propagation speed of light from our Sun the same as from a more, or less, massive sun? It could very well be that the speed of light is conditional to the energy output of the source.

"According to this the Royal Society, if we want be correct, should not seek refutation the posture of constant speed of EMT but the determining their physical-based models."

If the speed of light is conditional to the energy output of the light source then it would negate Einstein's "light postulate".

The question then is, what unknowns of the particle/wave theory can your model explain? The first one that comes to my mind is, why is it the light reflected back into itself is not brighter than the original light?

I am going to end for now but so far I have no reason to dispute, or dismiss, your model.

bob s
RE: OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY JUNE 22 2009, 12:22 AM
1.I assume that you mean "...and how this conclusion is implemented in the theory of Relativity [is wrong
A1. Accurately, they use it incorrectly.

2.I will assume for the sake of this discussion that the medium you are referring to is homogeneous and therefor, the speed of EMW is constant. I also assume that the medium you are referring to is the Aether.
A2. Assumption is accurate. The name is matters of agreement, the characteristics of medium are important. I also use the term Aether, but it is important only which characteristics are attribute to its. In this paper I didnt used it in order to a discussion becomes generally character.

3.OK! so in your opinion it is not particles (photons) that propagate from the source to the sensor (receptor).
A3. OK, as 2.

4.I read that as the Aether is made up of particles that have an electrical charge, right?
A4. As 2. And 4.

5.Based on the above assumptions I agree.
A5. OK

6.Based on the above assumptions I agree.
A6. OK

7.The propagation of light then, is by transferring oscillations (vibrations) from one Aether particle to the next.
A7. It is correct.

8.For the sake of discussion let's keep the Aether particles as homogeneous so that the propagation speed remains constant, Ok! We can worry about propagation speeds later if and when we agree on the oscillation (vibration) transfer process.
A8. This is my proposal and I expect arguments pro and contra.

9.The current model has light propagating as a particle and a wave. It can not be both but it can be neither. Your model has light as propagating as a transfer of energy across the particles of Aether. I suggest that you keep the wave/particle theory of light out of the works and focus on the vibration (oscillations) aspect.
A9. I just do this with the proposed model.

10.You are saying that the vibration/oscillations continue after the source has been extinguished, IOW, the speed of "dark", right? Conceivably true, but it would also apply the the current model as well as yours.
A10. Source EMW initiated a process that continues until it smothers itself when there is no new influx of energy, like by all real oscillation processes.
11.Now is when you start to get really interesting. Light is the natural byproduct of heat, right? (Chemical also, but not important now). So far you have light propagating at a constant speed in the homogeneous Aether. And, if light is the byproduct of heat would not the propagation speed be dependent on the energy output of the source ie heat. The question then is, is the propagation speed of light from a dying ember the same as from a raging fire? Is the propagation speed of light from a flashlight the same as from a search light? Is the propagation speed of light from our Sun the same as from a more, or less, massive sun? It could very well be that the speed of light is conditional to the energy output of the source.
A11. EMW is a process at the subelementals level and heat waves are material nature and cannot be byproduct of heat waves. We cannot compare these processes. Light is electromagnetic process with the carriers of known characteristics. We differentiate its by frequencies and not according the nature of this phenomenon, which is the same. In addition, the frequency is correlated with sours energy (Planck's experiments).

12.If the speed of light is conditional to the energy output of the light source then it would negate Einstein's "light postulate".
A12. My whole work is motivated by the establishment of real models of Nature and EMT is an unavoidable phenomenon in which it was wrongly interpreted.

13.The question then is, what unknowns of the particle/wave theory can your model explain? The first one that comes to my mind is, why is it the light reflected back into itself is not brighter than the original light?
A13.Stroked object, the particles in it, becomes a new source of EMW with reduced energy (due parasites processes in it) and it excites a new EMW.

14.I am going to end for now but so far I have no reason to dispute, or dismiss, your model.
A14. I am glad that we have achieved a high degree of conformity. However, it is only one detail of the complex issues related to the understanding of Nature. Whether the discussion will be expanded does not depend on me. The question of EMT is drawn from the middle and we would have to first agree with the question when and how to start a discussion. (I suggest that you read my article ONE STEP BACK TWO STEPS FORWARD on 16th NPA conference).

Re: Milos, OPEN LETTER TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY June 22 2009, 5:51 PM

"(I suggest that you read my article ONE STEP BACK TWO STEPS FORWARD on 16th NPA conference)."

Milos, I want you to know that I have not abandon our dialog. I am reading the paper you suggested and it gives much food for thought, when I can summarize those thoughts I will respond.