Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Wavicles are a charming concept with no supporting evidence of such an object. |
Louis DeBroglie was one of the first people to suggest that light, previously thought of as a wave, could also demonstrate particle properties. The primary example being the photoelectric effect.
So, as you see, there is supporting evidence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing EM waves will propagate through equal quantities of ethereal matter (space or vacuum) for any given absolute time increment.
Thus the speed is dependent on the spatial density; |
As you have said, velocity has a dependancy on the the spatial density.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing You are quite misguided in this belief. Scientific fact does not support this view either.
|
Science fact is stuck in the realms of light having a constant velocity, so does not support a view that would imply its whole basis is incorrect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Occam's Razor has nothing to do with science. If one needs to resort to quoting this lame quote, then it is quite likely one DOES NOT KNOW and should state that fact. |
It does not mean that at all. It merely implies that there are a number of possibilities, none of which can be proven or disproven, and more often than not the simplest solution is the correct one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Sorry Steven; your interpretations indicates a rather poor science discipline. |
You seem very quick to judge.
Look back over your posting concerning an object having properties of both wave and particle and then tell me who has the poor scientific discipline. You list optics in your biography.
Nothing I have posted contradicts scientific fact.
Infinite velocity of light does not contradict that the
"MEASUREMENT" of the speed of light renders the same value.
Like everything else here, it's a theory.
You mentioned
ethereal matter. Up until a few years ago, you would have been laughed at for mentioning aether, but then how times change, because it is now more acceptable.
I for one am not laughing.