A Proper Gander At Propaganda

TRUTH TRANSCENDS COMMUNITY

PLEASE NOTE: This is not a conspiracy theory blog.

This website exists to serve as public resource for reverse imagineering world-wide culture, one that takes a critical look at the numerous artifacts and other types of relics that represent our shared collective international heritage. This blog is dedicated to examining social engineering and the use of tax funded governmental propaganda, and the mainstream media, as international human resource management tools.

About The AA Morris Proper Gander At Propaganda Podcast: Coming to you from one of the suburban metropolitan melting pots of international culture, outside of one of the multimedia capitals of the world, New York City, the Proper Gander at Propaganda podcast is meant to be a filter free look at our shared international cultural heritage, our shared social media infused and obsessed present, and what our children and their children could be looking forward to. This link will bring you to the podcast page of this website, with embedded squarespace audio: link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast/

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

AA "The Proper Gander" Morris

Article Index Link  •  Tip Jar Link: For those who wish to support independent media.

Web addresses: www.aamorris.net or www.aamorris.com

Newton & Einstein Proven Wrong: Light is an Aether Wave!

 
 
AAMORRIS.PSD.jpg

image source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prism-rainbow-black-2.svg

Light is best described as a wave.

This is what reproducible experiment clearly demonstrates.

Light is proven to be an Aether wave.

Waves logically require a medium. "Aether" is as good a name as any. Reproducible experiment is real science. Mathematical equations alone are not examples of "scientific discoveries" despite all Nobel Prize winning hype and marketing propaganda to the contrary.

"Thomas Young's experiment with two narrow slits inserted between the light source (here a laser) and the detector (here a screen). Waves emerging from one slit are superimposed on waves from the other slit, producing the observed interference pattern with alternate dark and bright lines on the screen."

"The Wave-Particle Duality"

"A particle on the classical view is a concentration of energy and other properties in space and time, whereas a wave is spread out over a larger region of space and time. The question whether light are streams of particles (corpuscles) or waves is a very old one. This "either - or" formulation was classically natural and alien to the advanced "both - and" even the "neither - nor" solution of today. Early in the nineteenth century experiments were suggested and made to show that light is a wave motion. A key figure in this endeavour was Thomas Young, one of the most intelligent and clever scientists ever to live, who studied diffraction and interference of light already in 1803 with results that gave strong support to the wave theory of Christian Huygens as opposed to the particle or corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton. Further contributions were made by many other researchers, among them Augustin Jean Fresnel, who showed that light is a transverse wave."

"A particle on the classical view is a concentration of energy and other properties in space and time, whereas a wave is spread out over a larger region of space and time. The question whether light are streams of particles (corpuscles) or waves is a very old one. This "either - or" formulation was classically natural and alien to the advanced "both - and" even the "neither - nor" solution of today. Early in the nineteenth century experiments were suggested and made to show that light is a wave motion. A key figure in this endeavour was Thomas Young, one of the most intelligent and clever scientists ever to live, who studied diffraction and interference of light already in 1803 with results that gave strong support to the wave theory of Christian Huygens as opposed to the particle or corpuscular theory of Isaac Newton. Further contributions were made by many other researchers, among them Augustin Jean Fresnel, who showed that light is a transverse wave." "Newton's theory of light had seemed suitable to explain the straight-line casting of sharp shadows of objects placed in a light beam. But wave theory was needed to explain interference where the light intensity can be enhanced in some places and diminished in other places behind a screen with a slit or several slits. The wave theory is also able to account for the fact that the edges of a shadow are not quite sharp. The mathematical theory of electromagnetism by James Clerk Maxwell, set up in 1864, led to the view that light is of electromagnetic nature, propagating as a wave from the source to the receiver. Heinrich Hertz discovered experimentally the existence of electromagnetic waves at radio-frequencies in the 1880s. Maxwell died in 1879 and Hertz died only 37 years old in 1894, two years before Alfred Nobel's death. At the end of the 19th century, which also is the time when the Nobel Prizes were instituted, the wave nature of light seemed definitely established. Thus the decisive research into the wave nature of light came too early to be considered for Nobel Prizes. However, there is one exception - the case of X-rays. Discoveries relating to the particle nature of light belong to our century and thus one might expect Nobel Prizes be awarded for such achievements. This is almost true - but the Nobel archive tells a more complicated story as will be uncovered below."

"In physics textbooks two phenomena are usually quoted demonstrating the particle nature of light: 1) the photoelectric effect and 2) the Compton scattering of X-rays. In some not so critical texts a third circumstance is erronously quoted, namely Planck's discovery of energy quanta, which he did in his analysis of heat radiation. The Nobel Committee honoured this monumental discovery by the Physics Prize in 1918, but did not make the mistake to give Planck credit for having discovered the particle nature of light."

"The 1921 Nobel Prize to Albert Einstein (awarded in 1922)"

"Albert Einstein in 1905 drew the conclusion that light sometimes behaves as particles through an ingenious statistical analysis of Wien's formula for the wave length distribution of heat radiation. Einstein saw that his new idea would provide a natural explanation of the photoelectric effect, i.e. the emission of electrons from metal surfaces illuminated by light. The wave theory of light was quite unable to do so. The motivation for the Nobel Prize to Einstein in 1922 was based on his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect."

source: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/physics/ekspong/

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

"If light demonstrated particlelike behavior exclusively, you would see only two dots on the wall corresponding to the locations of the slits. Oddly enough, Isaac Newton understood light this way: as a stream of particles, like a series of baseballs being thrown in a straight line. The problem posed by the double-slit experiment is that "baseballs" thrown through one hole seem to care about what the baseballs thrown through the other hole do! In the 19th century scientists decided that light must be a wave, but after witnessing light demonstrating particlelike behavior, Albert Einstein proposed that light can indeed be described as a particle (called a photon). The physicist Max Planck panicked, claiming, "the theory of light would be thrown back not by decades, but by centuries" if the scientific community were to accept Einstein's theory! But scientists ultimately arrived at the conclusion that light is both a particle (photon) and a wave."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-light-wave-particle/

A "statistical analysis" is not reproducible experiment.

The Noble prize winning work attributed to Albert Einstein is propaganda, a form of secular religious dogmatic catechism. It is nonsense and not science.

"The problem posed by the double-slit experiment is that "baseballs" thrown through one hole seem to care about what the baseballs thrown through the other hole do!"

"The Nobel Prize for Physics to Max Planck"

"Planck's discovery of what is called Planck's constant , was emphasized as motivation for his prize in 1918. This new constant of nature (with the dimension of energy multiplied by time) connects the quantum of energy with the frequency of light, , through the formula . In the presentation at the Nobel Prize ceremony in 1918 it was said , "The product is actually the smallest amount of heat which can be radiated at the vibration frequency ." Planck himself resisted the idea that light in vacuum propagates as particles, later on called photons. As will be clear from the following, the Nobel Committee for Physics did not recognise the particle nature of light neither when awarding the 1921 Prize (awarded in 1922) to Albert Einstein "for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect," nor when in 1927 awarding Arthur Holly Compton the Physics Prize "for his discovery of the effect named after him." "

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bring-science-home-light-wave-particle/

Mathematical Equation backed by peer review replaces demonstrable experiment.

Mental chaos is created when the trivium and quadrivium are officially inverted. Mathematics is a tool that represents counting; it is a language and can be used, like language can, to deceive as equally as this tool can be used to legitimately educate.

The demonstrable wave nature of the phenomena we term light is the obvious explanation for the observation. Magically linked imagined quantum particles are examples of  fantasy embodied in mathematical equation and backed not with demonstrable experiment which can be reproduced, but by peer reviewed process instead. Peer review replaces demonstrable experiment. Mathematical equations that represent proportions are not "scientific discoveries" despite all Noble prize awarded nonsense to the contrary. The fact is much of the work attributed to Newton and Einstein, Planck and company, is obviously flawed and wrong. These men represent modern secular religious idols. These men represent secular religious saints who exist as icons meant to define the bounds of reason for the mass (industrialized and urbanized) population.

More to come about his subject.