Special Relativity: Alternatives?

[arkain101]

There is a group of concepts I have thouroughly thought out that I would like to discuss here.

 

These concepts are related to motion, light, and matter. In otherwords, it relates to the dilations described the theory of Special Relativity.

 

First I want to list the things that occur and can be measured in near speed of light velocities.

 

 

1)

As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

 

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

 

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

 

Note: this is to imagine an object traveling perpendicular to the observer.

 

2)

As an object travels directly away from an observer the time it takes for the light to reach that observer increases. So as an object accelerates away from an observer at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the light to reach the observer continually increases even if and when the light remains at a constant velocity. If the object travels 1 year away at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the observer to detect the object in that posistion will also take (aprox) a year. Thus when the light reaches the observer (which took a year) the object will now be close to 2 light years away.

 

Likewise, when an object travels towards an observer the light that comes from that object has less and less distance to travel. Thus the time it takes for the light to reach the observer will continually decrease. When the object nears the speed of light it keeps (a significant) pace with the light it is eminating, to the observer.

 

3)

When an object travels in any direction to an observer at a signifcant distance (where time visuals can be managable) at nearing the speed of light, the observer measures only the light of the object but not the object itself (with a ruler for example). Furthermore, what happens to the object directly is not measureable (because it is moving near the speed of light) but only the light that eminates from it is.

 

4)

Any observer, moving or not, can only detect light that has had an interatcion with them. The light that eminates from an observer is undectable, unmeasurable, and in a way like a phantom photon that may never be reached, and can in a sense allow it to not exist. However the only method to detect that photon is to have it absorbed by another object and reflected back to the observer. However at this point it is not the same photon.

 

5)

The wavelength of light from a moving object will always change to an observer as that object changes velocities. This is, anything that has a frequency increases distance between each 'peak' as the velocity increases. Because all forms of light are frequencies they will observed to change when eminating from a moving object in comparison to rest. (we must also assume the observer is at rest [note that when a person is at rest it also means they can not move their eyes if they want pure rest observations. Moving your eyes is a way to catch different angles of light and will change your observation details making the light coming from a moving object behave differently. However this is not all that important since measurements in most cases will be done by a machine and not the eyes, but it does help for minds eye thought experiment])

 

 

This is the list so far on the top of my head (I got no notes) of things which occur in motion systems, before we introduce any theory with Relativistic effects. This is to keep the discussion on track with the interests at hand.

 

So when objects increase speed and near the speed of light great distances are being covered very quickly and these lets say regular relative occurances should take place.

 

It is alloweable to ignore Special Relativity because its effects are not introduced in a significant way untill the velocities involved reach a specific value.

 

The regular effects in this list also do not appear in a significant way untill the velocities involved reach a specific value. (fractions of light speed as it were).

 

 

My request is to discuss the sections of this list and recieve your input.

[arkain101]

Are any of these effects used and input into current physics forumla?

 

I have spent some time studying SR and general physics, however I have failed to see these concepts considered or mentioned.

 

I dont have the mathamatical knowhow to crunch the numbers and see how these effects would play out, but I will see what I can put together. I know it can be difficult to follow so much description without combining it with maths and diagrams.

:esmoking:

[arkain101]

I thought what I would do is add some observations of absolute basics in relation motion and force.

 

 

As an object moves it carries momentum that is relative to all other reference frames. It may have zero momentum for one frame and high momentum for another frame. Whether it has motion or not, momentum or not (kenetic energy or not) the object will only be able to move one direction and while moving one direction it will want to continue in a strait line untill affected by outside forces. Thus it is to say a body in motion or at rest can only obtain 1 dimension motion, that is infinite in direction relative to all other reference frames.

 

Any object that is taking a curved path of motion can be said to be under the influence of a force. So where a curved path is found so is a force found. Where a force is found curvature is found. This relates to objects with rotation. That which rotates, is under the influence of a force. Where there is a force, rotation may be found.

 

An object that is following a strait path is not under influence of force. As said before it can be many things to many different reference frames. It may be at rest or motion, in infinite directions, relatively. However, an object with rotation will always be intwined with force and will contain motion to ALL and any observation frame.

 

In the micro world things such as atoms and particles have spin/rotation, thus they have force amongst them.

 

There are these known fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and weak nuclear. with the possibility of the casmir.

 

Where these forces are found there is found what we call mass that is entwined with these forces. If mass is found to be in motion it contains a force that can act upon a seperate frame.

 

I do not know what this all concludes, but as you can see I am listing basic occurances to develope a simple basic structure to work with.

 

Any responses are welcome. I want to make sure things are correct.

[CraigD]

In the micro world things such as atoms and particles have spin/rotation, thus they have force amongst them.

Although this is an accurate description of composite particles and ensembles of particles such as protons, neutrons, and atoms, the term “spin” when applied to fundamental particles like electrons and quarks refers to a attribute more like charge, color, flavor, or several more obscure quantum attributes. The “spin” of the these fundamental particles appears to require no interaction with another particle. This is not simply a case of theoreticians fancifully borrowing a existing term for an unrelated quality – the spin of fundamental particles is similar to that of composite particles and macroscopic systems, having a axis and direction. It’s tempting to suspect that fundmental particles are not quite completely fundamental.

 

The wikipedia article section ”Spin of elementary and composite particles” briefly describes this.

There are these known fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and weak nuclear. with the possibility of the casmir.

Although many sources (including the linked wiki article) state that the Casimir effect is unrelated to the other four known fundamental forces, I believe this characterization is inaccurate. To the best of my understanding, the force associated with the Casimir effect is due to the usual forces, mostly the electromagnetic. What is unusual about the Casimir effect is not the force associated with it, but the origin of the particles with which the force interacts.

 

There’s also an argument to be made that inertia is a special fundamental force that acts always in opposition to one of the four “regular” fundamental forces.

 

I said the same in a previous post, ”13 or 5” in the “How many forces do we know off in physics?” thread.

 

Other than noted above, arkain’s preceeding post seems to me an accurate summary of classical Newtonian physics

[coldcreation]

I thought what I would do is add some observations of absolute basics in relation motion and force....

 

I do not know what this all concludes, but as you can see I am listing basic occurances to develope a simple basic structure to work with.

 

Any responses are welcome. I want to make sure things are correct.

 

I could be misguided, but it seems from the title of your thread that there is a disatisfaction with SR when gravity is not thrown into the mix. And so the word alternatives. What is it exactly that SR does not offer? And why the need to develope a simple basic structure to work with. Why not simply work with SR, or better yet general relativity. Why limit yourself to special cases of a more general theory.

[coldcreation]

]Casimir effect[/wiki] is unrelated to the other four known fundamental forces, I believe this characterization is inaccurate. To the best of my understanding, the force associated with the Casimir effect is due to the usual forces, mostly the electromagnetic. What is unusual about the Casimir effect is not the force associated with it, but the origin of the particles with which the force interacts.

 

Hey CraigD. Long time.

 

The Casimir effect would make a great subject for a new thread. The effect itself is easier to understand when waves are considered rather than particles. Simply put, the waves are zero-point energy fluctuations, ZPE, ZPF.

My guess is that Einstein's Lambda, the cosmological constant, is related to the above effect but the terms are not interchangable, i.e., lambda and the Casimir force are not synonyms. Either way the concept of four forces of nature (as we know them) sounds untenable.

[arkain101]

What is it exactly that SR does not offer? And why the need to develope a simple basic structure to work with. Why not simply work with SR, or better yet general relativity. Why limit yourself to special cases of a more general theory.

 

Thanks for the attentiont to the thread.

 

I want to work with the concepts and facts in the opening post because they are things that I am sure occur in high velocity motion, and I think I have come to understand they have been overlooked and possibly unknown.

 

Of course I could be wrong and if so, I would be happy to be corrected.:lol:

 

If it has been overlooked, and left out, then special relativity is incomplete and the very dilations that are predicted (and calculated) in the theory could have a completely alternative explanation.

 

This is why I find it important. I think if special relativity does not include these motion occurrances, such as; false object posistioning at near light speed velocities, then, the theory of SR can not be complete. If it is not complete (including all things in motion) then it is then false, and if it is false our conceptions of what happen are also wrong. :) ;)

 

 

As I understand it, SR does not include such occurances at near light speed velocites. I think there is the possibility that the result of excluding these occurances will lead to a result of the exact things included in SR. These things being dilations of dimensions (in comparison to, lets say.... dilation in observation perception?).

 

I think but I am not absolutly positive, that if you work these factors into the math of high velocity motion there will not be the same or no dilations to deal with.

 

I hope this explains it clear enough.

 

I am stating that the dilations predicted in SR may have an alternative explanation. That explanation is in the principles of motion that I described.

 

I know, far fethced, but its worth a shot to me. :lol:

[arkain101]

Title: Combing these principles into Alternative SR theory that aligns with quantum mechanics.

 

 

The theory that is formed is a theory of an possible alternative of special relativity.

 

What I discovered was what the following princple that I stated earlier (quote) translates into;

 

1)As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

 

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

 

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

 

The above is saying that the motion of bodies in the macro scale also contains the same or very similar (hiesenberg) uncertainty principle. That is that this relativity aligns with quantum mechics principles.

 

(in very high velocity scenarios)

To elaborate; As an observer measures the posistion of a moving body (of any size) they are left unable to prove the objects momentum. This is because any moving object can be measured in two forms. It can be measured by causing it to have a collision, which detects its posistion and momentum, or it can be measured by detecting its velocity and posistion via the light that eminates from that object.

The earlier is uncertain but predictable, but not proveable, the latter is certain and proveable.

 

thus It can be said that an object can be measured in two ways. One that is certain and one that is not, one that is in particle form and one that is in wave form.

 

The reason for this,

The objects position in high velocity (near light speed) systems is able to escape instantanious report to observer. It is also able to accellerate into time of report. This is, as a particle moves away, or perpendicular to an observer at a significant velocity the light that comes from that object will take a period of time to travell the # distance from object to observer, and as it does, the object itself will be predicted to continue on its path. Predicted because the measurement can no longer be instant enough to know what the object is doing in the present.

The object to the observer will act like it is moving into the future. In the same way the actions on the sun are in our 'future' and take time to reach us, the action of the moving object likewise acts as if it is in the future, it is no longer instantanious measurement.

 

The direction of movement of the moving object will be the cause for the occurances of the observation. If the object moves towards an observer a clock will apear to accelerate, and the posistion of the object will not be certain, depending on its distance. If the object moves perpendicular, a clock will act in sync with the observer due to the moment where distance is not changing between the frames. Finally as an object accelerates more away from an observer a clock will apear to slow down, and the posistion of the object will become uncertain but theoretically predictable.

 

However, in this case a clock is not what measures time in the conventional way. The rate a clock ticks in the observers frame is its own constant, this is, as long as that clock remains at rest the period length between tocks will remain constant. When a clock at rest is compared to a clock in a moving moving frame, it is only the light that displays the moving clock -IN THE OBSERVERS FRAME- which is used to observe and measure the difference between the clocks. However, the observation can reach no further than outside its own rest frame.

When put in short it means any change that occurs is in the light but not in the clocks own material.

 

It is important to note that this difference in clock tick is not as intwined with passage of time in the frames. The reason for this is any observation made is an observation made in the observing frame, any distance outside that frame is undetectable and impossible to reach and must be introduced as a law to understand this relativity.

 

Time, as it were, ticks by in syncronization for the matter in each frame. Thus regardless of distance all matter may act in syncronicity. However the light that traverses between any frame may alter the measurement of time comparison, and run in difference.

 

We end up with, as I understand (hopefully) coinciding an alternative SR theory to quantum mechanics theory due to the fact they both share the uncertainty princple, and mesh in macro and micro.

 

Here we have a list of what is described in this theory, (in this post).

 

- the uncertainty principle in both micro and macro (quantum thoery and Relativity)

- The wave particle duality of both light and matter

- syncronicity between systems

- dilations observed in an observers frame

- Time, the observation of time, and the conception of time.

[Farsight]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Special Relativity, arkain. I don't think the observed position really makes the difference you're looking for. I also think that waves and particles are a red herring, frames don't matter, and clocks don't matter. These things are all related to how you experience the world, not how it is. What really counts is events. Like when you collide with a fast moving object. Then there's no doubt, no argument, and everything's cut and dried. If there is a link to be made between SR an QM, IMHO it'll be by focusing more on the events and less on the party tricks of relativistic travel. Sorry.

[IDMclean]

Well, Popular, I wouldn't be so dismissive of Arkain's studies. What he is talking about here regarding observed position and real position at relativistic speeds is rather germaine to the whole of physics.

 

What he is discussing here is fundamentally what we would call Heisenberg Uncertainty, which is huge to quantum mechanics.

 

Events are good and all, but what happens if an event happens further into your future, and their past? See in this, arkain quite correctly points out that for an object at near the speed of light, the position that we observe would not be the actual "current" position of the object, but rather it's doppler.

 

How then can you accurately predict the object's position, and when-where an event will occur, if you do not know it's real world position?

[CraigD]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Special Relativity, arkain. I don't think the observed position really makes the difference you're looking for.

I agree.

 

The “false object positioning” that arkain describes is explained by any physical model in which the speed of light is finite and constant, such as Newtonian mechanics. As Newtonian mechanics are a special, approximate case of Special Relativity, FOP is also explained by it.

 

This quote

Here we have a list of what is described in this theory, (in this post).

 

- the uncertainty principle in both micro and macro (quantum thoery and Relativity)

contains, I believe, a basic and serious confusion of 2 fundamentally separate ideas.

 

The (Heisenberg) uncertainty principle simply states that the uncertainty of the position of anything ([math]\Delta x[/math]), sub-atomic particle or planet, cannot be less than a very small constant [math] \left (\frac \hbar 2[/math], 5.27*10^{-35} J s) \right )[/math] divided by the uncertainty in its momentum ([math]\Delta p[/math], mass * velocity). Because [math]\frac \hbar 2[/math] is very small, and [math]\Delta p[/math] very large for macroscopic objects, [math]\Delta x[/math] for macroscopic objects is much smaller than can be measured. Only when [math]\Delta p[/math] is very small, as in the case of subatomic particles, is [math]\Delta x[/math] measurable. This is given by the famous equation

[math]\Delta x \Delta p = \frac \hbar 2[/math].

 

The apparent position of an object that arkain describes, though different for observers in different positions, has no inherent uncertainty. If you knows the velocity and the apparent position of the body with a low uncertainty (that is, with high precision), you can calculate its position as observed by an observer at any position with high precision. This is given by the equation

[math]\Delta x = \Delta x_0 + \frac 1 c (v + \Delta v) \Delta d[/math],

where [math]\Delta x[/math] is the uncertainty in the calculated position,

[math]\Delta x_0[/math] is the uncertainty in the apparent position,

[math]c[/math] is speed of light velocity,

[math]v[/math] is the apparent velocity,

[math]\Delta v[/math] is the uncertainty of the apparent velocity,

and [math]\Delta d[/math] is the uncertainty of the apparent distance between the object and the observer. This equation can be derived from the definition of position and velocity,

[math]x = x_0 + v t[/math]

 

Unlike in the uncertainty principle’s equation, where [math]\Delta x[/math] approaches infinity as [math]\Delta v[/math] (and, consequently, [math]\Delta p[/math]) approaches zero, in the apparent position equation, [math]\Delta x[/math] approaches 0 as the other uncertainties approach zero. One can know position as accurately as one can measure apparent position and velocity, subject to the inherent uncertainty of the uncertainty principle, which, for astronomical objects, is much smaller than can be measured, without the use of any of the equations of Relativity.

[arkain101]

The apparent position of an object that arkain describes, though different for observers in different positions, has no inherent uncertainty. If you knows the velocity and the apparent position of the body with a low uncertainty (that is, with high precision), you can calculate its position as observed by an observer at any position with high precision. This is given by the equation

 

Again thanks for the reply as I am very interested in this at the moment.

 

I agree 100% you can use an equation, likely the one you expressed to calculate the posistion.

 

However, I called it uncirtain because it is technically in our future (at high enought speeds where the time difference is noticeable and significant).

 

For example, we can calculate how long it takes for a period of observation to reach us on earth from the sun, but when we find it takes 8mins. We can not be certain what the sun is doing right now. If it blew up for example it would be impossible for us to tell for 8mins (aprox). We would be uncertain of the observation for 8min.

 

In the same way, an objects posistion in near light speed velocity is not where the object is. If the object ran into a black hole that we were unaware of. We would not be certain it happened untill a period of time after because we would only observe its phantom posistion. (relative and dependent on angle of motion and velocity).

[arkain101]

The “false object positioning” that arkain describes is explained by any physical model in which the speed of light is finite and constant, such as Newtonian mechanics. As Newtonian mechanics are a special, approximate case of Special Relativity, FOP is also explained by it.

 

This quote

Quote:

Originally Posted by arkain101

Here we have a list of what is described in this theory, (in this post).

 

- the uncertainty principle in both micro and macro (quantum thoery and Relativity)

 

contains, I believe, a basic and serious confusion of 2 fundamentally separate ideas.

 

Thanks Craig. It seems I have mixed up seperate ideas.

 

Uncertainty principle(wiki)

increasing the accuracy of the measurement of one quantity increases the uncertainty of the simultaneous measurement of the other quantity. The most familiar of these pairs is the position and momentum.

 

Uncertainty principle Relativistic Motion.(the one I described)

The observed posistion of an object is not exact to the frame of that object. It can be calculated where that object is but not certain to an observation frame due to the time in which is between the two frames.

 

Check below post to see what I am refering to as Aberration of light, still explainable with this alternative relativity theory.

[arkain101]

What I am reffering to is this.

 

Aberration of light

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration or stellar aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects. It was discovered and later explained by the third Astronomer Royal, James Bradley, in 1725, who attributed it to the finite speed of light and the motion of Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

 

At the instant of any observation of an object, the apparent position of the object is displaced from its true position by an amount which depends upon the velocity of the observer relative to an inertial frame of reference. In the case of an observer on Earth, the direction of its velocity varies during the year as Earth revolves around the Sun (or strictly speaking, the barycenter of the solar system), and this in turn causes the apparent position of the object to vary. This particular effect is known as annual aberration or stellar aberration, because it causes the apparent position of a star to vary periodically over the course of a year. The maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination. Although this is a relatively small value, it was well within the observational capability of the instruments available in the early eighteenth century.

 

Aberration should not be confused with stellar parallax, although it was an initially fruitless search for parallax that first led to its discovery. Parallax is caused by a change in the position of the observer looking at a relatively nearby object, as measured against more distant objects, and is therefore dependent upon the distance between the observer and the object. In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer's instantaneous velocity at the moment of observation, not that this velocity will carry the observer to a different position over time.

 

Aberration should also be distinguished from light-time correction, which is due to the motion of the observed object, like a planet, through space during the time taken by its light to reach an observer on Earth. Light-time correction depends upon the motion and distance of the object, but is independent of the velocity of Earth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

 

However it is not only in distant stars. It is an effect I propose (whether known or not) that comes into effect in high velocity (near the speed of light) events. Where Either the observer or the moving frame can cause the effect.

 

There is a few ways to test this theory and I will list them.

.

[arkain101]

This Theory and Michelson Morely Experiment.

 

Attempt to show how to have an aether like universe and not be affected by "aether wind'.

 

There is an redescription in this theory that allows there to be zero difference in the time it takes a light wave to cover a two paths when dealing with the effect of aether wind, in an aether like universe.

 

Visit this link ( http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm )and experiment with the tool to become familiar with the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It measures the proposed expectations of an aether enviroment.

 

This theory suggests there will never be a difference between the two different paths of light in an aether enviroment while the system is in motion.

 

I have 4 images (four stages) of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

In each image I describe the expected velocity of the light wave.

The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C.

 

The speed of light is not violated.

 

Image 1. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment.jpg

The light leaves the lazer at 0.9C head on into the aether which is traveling 0.1C (Note the light is moving 0.9C relative to the lazer[observer] thus

 

Image 2. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment2.jpg

The light splits into the two perpendicular paths. The green arrow (we call A) remains going 0.9C. The red arrow (we call :doh: turns perpendicular to the aether and travels at 1.0 C, or C.

 

Image 3. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment3.jpg

The light reflects and returns to the center mirror. Historically, or in todays theory the experiment was calculated that no wave could reach a value beyond C. However in this theory it is acceptable for the light to reach C relative to the aether on its return trip. Thus light wave a travels at 1.1C relative to the experiment system.

 

Image4. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment4.jpg

The light waves (which are matched) make there way to the detector, perpendicular to the aether at a velocity of 1C in tandom. (which is why the green arrow is cancled out because it will be in equality with the other wave.

 

Image5. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment5.jpg

A table that shows the different velocity of the light relative the experiment system in each step and shows that at the end of the trip the total velocity is equal. I called this net however, I meant to say the average velocity for each path ends up the same once it makes its way to the detector.

 

Relative to the aether the speed of the photon (light wave) never changed. However to the experiment it did, which was expected historically during these experiments. Thus because the light speed does not remain constant to the observer in an aether enviroment it can reach velocities beyond C on its path towards the observer.

 

This would be expected to violate the rule of the speed of light, but it does not when the speed of the observer is put into account. For example, if an observer is moving at velocity .5C and a source of light is coming directly towards the observer, the light will be measured to be moving faster than C relative to the observer, but only because the observer is also moving relative to the aether. The time it takes for a light to reach an observer is less if it moves towards it rather than remain at rest, thus it can be said that the light reaches the observer sooner, thus the observer moves forward in time compared the posistion further back where it was at rest. I say moves foward in time because the event is observed sooner.

 

As for the structure and properties of this aether, there are many current theoretical versions.

 

This very structure of the system aligns precisely with the rest of the statements in this theory.

 

My accertion is that our expectation of a delay occuring for the two different light paths was not correct. The velocity of light was not kept at constant to begin with so it is valid to allow it to exceed C only relative to the observer when it travels in the direction of the 'aether wind'.

 

 

***Testing this theory and the possibility of ether existence***

 

see here: http://hypography.com/forums/142685-post20.html

[arkain101]

Because this theory does not yet have an official title I will remain to refer to it as alternative relativity theory.

 

alternative relativity theory:

 

Aether Dynamics and Cerenkov Radiation

 

 

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html#c3

 

When highly radioactive objects are observed under water, such as in "swimming pool" reactors and in the underwater temporary spent fuel storage areas at nuclear reactors, they are seen to be bathed in an intense blue light called Cerenkov radiation. It is caused by particles entering the water at speeds greater than the speed of light in the water. As the particles slow down to the local speed of light, they produce a cone of light roughly analogous to the bow wave of a boat which is moving through water at a speed greater than the wave speed on the surface of the water. Another analogy statement is to say that the Cerenkov cone is like a sonic boom except that it is done with light.

 

Propose light 'energy' is produced in a similar manner. The electron persay, attemping to exceed or reach the speed of light. As it does it acts in the same manner a particle does when entering a medium where light travels slower, sending out a light wave.

 

All particles with mass are capable to produce light energy.

 

If a nuclei is stressed enough it too may hammer into a specific medium light travels in, at a high enough velocity to send out a pulse of energy, light.

 

I only mean to propose consideration of this effect with the aether plausability.

[Farsight]

arkain: it feels like there's too much here, I'm having trouble getting a hold of what you're saying so I can back to you. How about homing in on one topic or aspect?