And they never will until they consider the electric fields that must be present. Oh, and BH's are fairy tales conjured up in the minds of fanciful mathematicians.
now we need to hear from "water waves"AWT cannot replace the formal theories, but it complements them and it brings and intuitive insights into their understanding, like the
The plot provided shows a linear relationship between log(power) and brightness.
This is not a constant fraction or "similar fraction" relationship.
"Regardless of these differences, the jets produce light by tapping into similar percentages of the kinetic energy of particles moving along the jet" - article
"Aether" was rejected by observation over a century ago.Aether was rejected by observation of negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment, which was based on fringe idea, that the light is mediated with longitudinal waves of aether and therefore it must be a subject of aether drag. But as we know, the light is transverse wave and such a waves exhibit a drag neither in material environments. In addition, the Lorentz invariance was derived with Lorentz a long time before Einstein just with using of aether model - the constant speed of light can be derived from Maxwell equations rather easily based on fluid model. So, how is it possible, the aether was disproved just with the same result, which this model predicts? The people like you, who are parroting the same sentence without reflecting any arguments just demonstrate, how religious and mentally rigid the contemporary physics actually is
Electric fields are already considered to be the jet mechanismThis is not true. Prove it with some citation.
Pioneer anomaly is on spacecraft leaving the system, not near Earth which is the flyby anomalyYou didn't understand the meaning of 1parsec29's post. Of course, 1parsec29 knows, these two effects manifest at different scale - his opinion was, they both share the similar physical mechanism.
first is known to be real and a consequence of how IR radiationThis is not true - it's one of many hypothesis and many physicists don't agree (1, 2) with it. We observe many similar fly-by anomalies of another space-probes (Rossetta), which cannot be explained with thermal effects and the time curve of anomaly doesn't fit the decay curve of plutonium, which is the heat source at Pioneer spaceprobes.
Some crafts don't display it, meaning it is probably a measurement problem.LOL, this is typical dull approach of mainstream physics, driven with peer-review mechanisms. But it can just mean, this anomaly depends on many factors, which aren't understood yet. At first, flyby anomaly depends on the path of space-probe too, because it manifest mostly at the equatorial plane of massive objects. In addition, this anomaly depends on the surface/volume ratio of spaceprobe (large bulky planets don't exhibit it at all) and probably the type of its material too (if it's quantum fluctuation effect, then it's merely a Cassimir force mechanism at the large scale).
If I remember rightly, in one of the episodes of The Universe, it was suggested that objects flowing from the jets of blazars at 99% of c could be as large as bowling balls. Could this be right?
But as we know, the light is transverse wave and such a waves exhibit a drag neither in material environments.
why my eye glasses, telescope and prisms quit working,,, could you suggest a fix for thatI don't understand this comment. The validity of aether model doesn't doubt the existence of relativity and quantum mechanics - on the contrary, it explains, why we maintain just these two theories instead of three, four or single one.
If I had to Macgyver my own particle jet, these are the tools I would need...and maybe some gum....
cantdrive85
Dec 13, 2012And they never will until they consider the electric fields that must be present. Oh, and BH's are fairy tales conjured up in the minds of fanciful mathematicians.