From: Nick Balaskas <nikolaos.nul> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:21:48 -0500 Archived: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:48:40 -0500 Subject: CERN Scientists Proved Einstein Was Right - The Greetings Everyone! Below is an e-mail I sent to a space scientist colleague at York University early this morning. My colleague has designed and tested space propulsion systems that behave and have flight characteristics just like the 'flying saucers' moving through our skies as reported by the public and also described in more detail in published technical papers and scientific books on UFOs. What follows is his quick reply. As you can see from my e-mail, scientists often fail to come to the correct interpretation of surprising or unexpected experimental results or observations because of their personal biases, widely accepted assumptions or preconceived ideas. Could our first year physics students who know that the speed of light is NOT the same through all mediums but the speed of neutrinos is come up with the correct interpretation for why neutrinos travel faster than light that have evaded scientists so far? >Hi Stoyan, >Last week I attended a public lecture by Itay Yavin in Petrie >[Science and Engineering Building at York University in >Toronto]. Itay graduated [with a B.Sc. and Ph.D.] in physics >from York and is now with MacMaster [University] and the >Perimeter Institute [of Theoretical Physics]. His talk was >titled "Faster Than Light?". >During the question period that followed I proposed what I >thought was the obvious solution to the unexpected, but very >real, observations that neutrinos travel faster (just a tad >faster, mind you) than light. >Before I had a chance to fully present my case - an idea >inspired by students in our first year labs who apparently >know a lot more physics than many physicists and were not >biased by a certain assumption about light scientists hold to >be true - Itay quickly dismissed it as just another "crazy >theory". >Everyone knows that the speed of neutrinos is [exactly] the >same in a vacuum as it is when it travels through solids such >as the Earth. Light on the other hand travels at the speed of >"c" only in a PERFECT vacuum but less when travelling through >air; much slower still through water and even slower through >glass. >Since the neutrinos were observed to travel just a tad faster >than light (not twice as fast, 100 times faster or even more as >one would expect if the limiting speed of particles with mass >is not "c" as the CERN experiment implied), the simplest and >obvious conclusion that does NOT insist our current knowledge >and understanding of physics must be wrong is that the neutrino >itself must be travelling at the REAL speed of light or just a >tad faster than "c". >The speed of light (photons) would thus be less than the REAL >speed of light since dust and gas is present in the non-PERFECT >vacuum of interstellar space. In other words, since light in >space is travelling through a [very thin] medium, its speed >would be less than the REAL speed of light - the speed in a >PERFECT vacuum. With this simple fact, we are forced to revise >the value of "c" upwards since we have never really measured >the speed of light in a PERFECT vacuum anyways - something that >does not exist in Nature! >If interpreted this way, what I conclude the 278 co-authors of >this [very news worthy and potentially revolutionary] CERN >paper actually confirmed was the existence of Ether! >For light to travel just a tab slower than the REAL speed of >light (i.e the speed of a neutrino), we can estimate the >maximum mass density of the vacuum of interstellar space or >Ether. A quick calculation that our colleague and I made shows >that this mass density of the vacuum of space is extremely >small. This would explain why Ether was not detected before >forcing scientists, including Einstein who's theories demanded >that Ether exist, to discard it on the basis of observations >that failed to detect it. >Looking forward to your comments about our interpretation (the >Nobel Prize winning idea [or discovery] in Physics for 2012?) >of the CERN paper when we meet for lunch tomorrow (actually >later today!). >Nick Balaskas Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:25:43 -0500 From: stoyans <stoyans.nul> <snip> To: nikolaos.nul Hi Nick, Why the speed of light is so accurate (constant)? What defines the speed of light? If a student put this inconvenient questions to the professor he will receive a low grade. Main stream science does not like these questions. My BSM-SG theory is based on a detailed model of Ether and gives answer on these questions. But how the physics books today teach the students? When denying the existence of the Ether they even twist the statement of Einstein about the existence of Ether. In 1920 Einstein, (developed the General relativity) abandoned the idea that Ether does not exist and wrote in his book Sidelights on Relativity that the concept of Ether is absolutely needed. See the text in the attached file [file deleted in this post] the bottom side of page 23, which is a picture of his book. If you ask some professor teaching Physics he will say that he doesn't know this, or he will not speak about this publicly. Try this. Not only Einstein [but] I found that some original statements from other great scientists of the past are twisted 180 degrees. Stoyan [Sarg] Nick Balaskas Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp